It will support local businesses and it becomes a space that is giving local identity to our neighborhoods. I'm the Restore Director for Lexington Habitat for Humanity's Restore right here on Southland Drive. And of course, place making and community is so important to Habitat for Humanity. I'm thrilled to be working with the students from Retrofitting the Retro because not only do I work on Southland Drive, but I live right down the road here. In fact, one of the best parts about living on Southland Drive is that I do my grocery shopping here, I bought jewelry for our wedding at the gem source right behind me, and every morning I get to walk my daughters to preschool right over on Eastway Drive. The great thing about that is that one-on-one time together, but one of the tough parts is crossing the street where there are no crosswalks, and it can be kind of busy, and it's tough to do that when you've got your hands full of two four-year-olds. I'm looking forward to seeing what the students come up with for ways to address some of those pedestrian safety issues and also of course anyone on Southland Drive knows about our stormwater and flooding problems and seeing what creative ways we can come up with making a space that's friendly for people whether they're walking biking or driving and also you know addressing some of those kind of long-standing infrastructure problems. Public spaces are important to our community because that's where the community comes alive That's where people go to meet, they go to conduct business, they support their local businesses that surround the public space. It's also an opportunity for a community to create a local identity around that public space. And so it's key that our public spaces are not just parks. It's the areas outside of businesses. It's the plazas that are created so that when you go to a store or you grab a sandwich, you can go out and have a seat and enjoy. And it's a place where social connections and social mixing occurs, which is very important for our community as we continue to grow and foster our neighborhoods. One of the great things about Southland Drive are all of our small, locally owned businesses that we have. It just is so vital to the neighborhood and to our character. One of the challenges in aging infrastructure is that all of these small property owners don't always have the means or resources to coordinate together to make big improvements that we really need as a 60, 70 year old neighborhood. We're hoping that by coordinating with the city and with UK that we can address some really simple means of creating connectivity between. Thank you. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those, well, please vote as it comes upon your monitors. Thank you. Postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, I'm Richard Hopgood here on behalf of the applicant item number three, CAP-KY Bluegrass Properties. we would request a postponement to the November 17th meeting. We're working with our two neighbors across the street and next to us to try to improve parking and pedestrian access. We think we've got a path to getting that done, but we need some more time to work that out. So you said November the 17th? Yes, sir. Okay. Any in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion to postpone to November the 17th. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of Capkey Bluegrass Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, and Story Business Subdivision, Lot 6, to November 17, 2016. Okay. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Ms. Richardson, that we postpone Capkey Bluegrass Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, and Story Business Subdivision, Lot 6, until November 17. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Page 7, item number 7, Lexmark International, request a one-month postponement to November 17th. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular item? Is your agenda? Anyone on the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion for a postponement. Mr. Chairman. I move postponement of Plan MAR 16-12 until November 17. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Penn, that we postpone Lexmark International Incorporated Zoning Map Amendment and Lexmark International Corporation for one month, November 17. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes upon your monitors. Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? I'm still open up here. We'll take any that come. Okay, then we'll move into our, we've got an abbreviated hearing on number one, MAR 2015-25. Please set up for that. Mr. Chairman, we might ought to go over the remaining items to ensure that they all do qualify for agreed-in hearings. This might take just a minute or two, if that's okay. Okay, fine, please. The first, as you mentioned, is at the bottom of page one of the agenda, extending onto page two. This is MAR 2015-25. This is an amended application for rezoning of property at 5898 Old Richmond Road. is a zone change from an existing B1 neighborhood business zone to an AR agricultural rural zone for about three and one quarter acres of property at that address. This time, the staff would ask if anyone is present today who wishes either to object to the zone change or to comment on this proposed zone change for property at 5898 Old Richmond Road. Is anyone present wishing to speak to this? Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, then yes, this can be our first abbreviated hearing. The next that may qualify appears on page 5 of your meeting agenda. This is MAR16-09, a request by 1321 West Main LLC. This proposes a rezoning from an existing neighborhood business, B1 zone, to a requested wholesale and warehouse business, B4 zone, for property at 1315 and 1353 West Main Street. This involves about three-quarters of an acre of property. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone is present today who wishes either to speak to this zone change or object to this zone change proposed at 1315 and 1353 West Main Street. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this could then be our second abbreviated hearing of the day. The next item on your agenda, at the bottom of page 5, may also qualify for an abbreviated hearing. It is MAR16-10, Lexington Home Ownership Commission 2, Incorporated. This is an amended zone change request requesting rezoning from an R3 zone, planned neighborhood residential, to a high-density apartment, R4 zone, for about a half-an-acre property at 366 and 370 Glen Arvin Avenue. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone's present today who wishes to speak to this zone change or object to this proposed rezoning for property on Glen Arvin Avenue. Okay. Thank you, sir. Sir, we will have a full hearing a little later. Thank you. Okay. We will need to have a full hearing on this item. There is one other item that may qualify for abbreviated hearing. It appears on the bottom of page 6 of your meeting agenda. It is MAR16-11, Lexington Senior Housing 2, LLC. This is a proposed rezoning from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a high-density apartment R4 zone for about 2 1⁄2 acres of property, property having an address of 4268 Sarin Drive. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone's present who wishes to speak to this zone change request on Sarin Drive from B1 to R4. Is anyone present? Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our third abbreviated zone change hearing today. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. So we can then begin with number one, item MAR 2015-25. an abbreviated hearing okay Ms. Wade Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. Our first item does appear at the bottom of page 1, and in the Planning Commission's notebooks it should be behind tab 1. This is a request by Erfan M. Alami to rezone property at 5898 Old Richmond Road. The request is to rezone those subject property, which is about three acres from a current neighborhood business, B1 Zone, to an AR, which is our Agricultural Rural Zone. The subject property is located at the intersection of Old Richmond Road and Jack's Creek Pike. It is on the west side of Old Richmond Road and north of Jack's Creek Pike. As you can see from the overhead and our zoning map here to my right, the subject property as well as about six other acres in this general vicinity is currently zoned B1. It is at the crossroads of roads in the rural area, and we found that those rezoning pockets or zone pockets do exist throughout the rural area. In this case, the applicant currently has a residence on the parcel, and they wish to improve it. However, in the B1 zone, expansion and improvement of a residential structure that's nonconforming would not be allowed. For that reason, they chose to propose a rezoning of the subject property, and at first only proposed to rezone a part of the property, but they have amended their application and now wish to rezone the entire three and a quarter acres of land at this intersection. In addition to the residential structure, which appears at the north end of their property, there also is a very small structure that is vacant right at the intersection of Old Richmond Road and Jack's Creek. Other uses in the vicinity, not all of the B1 zone is occupied, but there is a small Baptist church directly across Old Richmond Road, and then there's a vacant convenience store across Jack's Creek Pike from this location. And again, the existing residents that they wish to modify and expand. The staff reviewed the comprehensive plan, and in this case, because it is in the rural land management plan, rural service area, we reviewed the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan as well. The Rural Land Management Plan does recommend core agricultural and rural land for the subject property. It is also part of the 23 identified non-residential pockets of urban zoning within the rural area that had the potential to impact rural character. The Rural Land Management Plan did recommend that those pockets be down-zoned to the AR zone or some lesser category, if at all possible, and as long as there wasn't an existing business that supported the rural area out there. And, of course, the case here is there's no business. It's a single-family residence. So the staff does believe that down-zoning to the AR zone is in agreement with the Rural Land Management Plan and is also supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The 2013 comprehensive plan also identifies in theme E, goal three, supporting our agricultural economy and character of the rural service area. The staff does not believe down zoning to the AR zone will change the character of the immediate area since they don't plan to utilize the property beyond what its existing use is. The staff does recommend approval, and the zoning committee also recommended approval three weeks ago. Happy to answer any questions. There is no zoning development plan associated with this. None is required when you rezone to an agricultural rural zone. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Ms. Mundy? Tracy, there has been some recent modification already going on on this property. Yes, ma'am. How is that happening? Well, the applicant was unaware that they could not do that because it's a non-conforming structure. So when the modifications began, building inspection received complaints about that, and the owner was notified that they could not proceed with those improvements because they involved expansion in terms of square footage of the residential structure, and it's non-conforming, so that's not allowed. that triggered the request to come in and talk to staff, and we suggested really their only avenue was either to remove the addition and put it back the way it was or to seek a zone change of some sort. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from Ms. Wade? Thank you. Thank you. Petitioner. My name is Jake Michael. I'm the attorney for the petitioner, Sam Malami, who's here. I think this is a relatively straightforward case that Tracy covered very well. I don't really have anything to add beyond that, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you all might have. So you're in agreement with everything, right? We are, yes. I love it. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Anyone from the audience like to say anything, speak to this? Okay. Back to the commission. Any other commission discussion? If not, we'll learn. Oh, okay. Just one question for Mr. Lawrence. I guess one question for the afternoon. Any plans for the old structure on the corner? Yes, actually, we did encounter some issues with some private restrictive covenants in a neighborhood group, which we've actually worked out in great detail, and Mr. Alami is going to remove that structure within the next three years. The three-year timeline is, one, for monetary reasons, and, two, because it will be used for some storage as he's fixing up the house on the property, but that will come down in three years or less, essentially. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from the county? Should that be included anywhere? I'll ask Ms. Wade. Ms. Wade, okay. The staff doesn't believe that that will be necessary. It would become nonconforming with the, or it's an accessory structure, really. in the AR zone. So there's not really a reason that the staff or the planning commission should mandate its removal. It's considered an accessory structure. I believe the applicant has come to an agreement with the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association to do that, but there's really nothing that should mandate its removal. I guess my question would go to possible business use. I believe maybe there was a blacksmith business in there years ago. But there's not currently. Okay. So you can't claim a non-use from years ago. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? Okay. Then I think we're back. We've had our discussion, I suppose, and now we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, if everyone's ready. Yep. We're ready. I'll move for recommendation of approval of MAR 2015-25E from M. Alami with the noted reasons by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve MAR 2015-25. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 2, TaylorMade Real Estate, LLC. Up next. Oh, all abbreviated hearings. Okay, that would be the next one would be... Which one is it? Okay. Sorry, that'll be number five, page five, item four, 1321 West Main, LLC. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, the staff does have one exhibit that I'd like to circulate to the commission. It is an aerial photo from around 1977 of a portion of the subject property. I think we had a conversation about this part of the property at your zoning committee meeting, as I recall three weeks ago. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. This item is Plan MAR16-09, a zone change request for 1321 West Main, LLC. This is a requested rezoning from an existing neighborhood business B1 zone. to a requested B4 wholesale and warehouse business zone. This involves just about three-quarters of an acre of property, both net and gross, and are portions of 1315 and 1353 West Main Street. We do have an aerial photo up on the screen of the property, but I would like to begin by orienting you to the property with a zoning map. Here we go. This property is on West Main Street, west of the viaduct over the railroad. This location here is very near the Meadowthorpe commercial area, and in fact is really on the easternmost edge of that neighborhood business area. The subject property is the rear portion of the two lots that I mentioned a moment ago, and most everyone driving this portion of Main Street cannot really see the subject property. It's really only visible through one of the adjacent B-1 zoned properties, where there is no building and no parking currently. From the road, there is a double aisle of parking that parallels Lee's Town Road or Main Street, and then a number of commercial buildings, as you see from the photographs in the lower left of the slide. So the subject property is the rear portion of these parcels. The zone change request is to a B4 zone. There is B4 zoning immediately adjacent that was approved about 20 years ago. And as you can see from the photo in the lower right-hand portion of the photo, there is a storage use that has been conducted here for that period of time for an adjacent engineering firm that's been in the vicinity much longer than the 20-year time horizon. To the east of that B4 area is I1 zoning, where there used to be a number of warehouses. In the last few years, the wood has been reclaimed from those warehouses, those structures have been removed, and the wood shipped to other places for processing and repurposing and construction. However, the dominant zoning in this area is the B1 zone associated with the Metathorpe commercial area on this northeast side of Leastown Road. The applicant has asked for this zone change in that they propose a mini-warehouse type of development, and you will see that development plan in just a moment as Ms. Galt will present that to you. The applicant cited one goal and objective from the conference at plan, but the staff could not ascertain that this request is in agreement with the 2013 conference at plan. However, their justification also was that the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed B-4 zoning is appropriate. Because of the very limited nature of the visibility of this site, which is also, I failed to mention, not even visible from North Forbes Road, which is the nearest side street to the area, the staff does agree that it is a very difficult location to conceive of a viable retail or restaurant type of use since it cannot be seen from much of any adjacent roadway. The fact that there is B-4 zoning adjacent that has been used for a similar use of storage for 20 years in a successful manner. It does demonstrate to the staff, at least through our review, that B4 is an appropriate zone at this location as well. So given those two factors, the staff is recommending approval of this zone change, as we told your zoning committee three weeks ago. Staff's recommending approval for the reasons that the requested wholesale and warehouse business zone is appropriate for the subject properties, for the four reasons that are listed on your staff report and on the agenda as well. Also a finding that the existing B1 zone is no longer appropriate for the subject properties, given their poor visibility. This recommendation is made subject to approval and certification of the development plan that will be presented. The photo is also attached to the development plan, and the discussion we had at your committee meeting was the condition of the parking behind the Churchill-McGee office building that is in the front of the development. And those photographs back to the 70s do indicate that this has been used for gravel parking for all of those years. Our concern was that perhaps the gravel had arrived on the site since the rewrite of the zoning ordinance in 1983, but this photo does seem to confirm that this condition even pre-exists the 1983 ordinance. So for that reason, the staff does not have any issue that we talked about with you at your committees. Again, Ms. Galt will present the development plan to you in just a moment, but I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission about our zoning report on this or the photograph. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Galt. What was Bill speaking about? We have West Main Street and the building here that he was talking about. Behind that is where the gravel is, which is in the driveway, going back to where the storage units are proposed for. We have one way in, and then it circulates to have one way coming back out towards West Main Street on the property. They had done a real good job between technical and subdivision committee, and they cleaned up a lot of the conditions. So we're down to very few conditions left for the plan. This is a preliminary development plan, so that's why we have very few conditions, and we can get that reviewed and signed shortly. We have clarified the use behind 1315, which is what Bill was explaining, that this was gravel. And we just wanted to verify and check that to see what they were using that for. Clarify the proposed lot coverage in the site statistics and resolve apparent easement and purpose of the same to the approval of the Division of Law. When they brought in the plan, they showed us what looked like an access easement that goes between the two pieces of property. If you look to the rear of the property, it hooks up to the professional office behind that, and they had used it for the engineering company for them to do storage and to do some testing for their company. It was never really recorded as an access easement. now that the property has been sold off to someone else. We have a note, an email that I had passed out, that with that they have a note saying that the owners are no longer using that access, and that's where condition 7 is. We just want to make sure that we have a note there that's resolved between both property owners as to it not being used anymore, so that they can continue and do the storage units on that property. With that, I'll open it for any other comments, questions. Any comments or questions for Ms. Gallup? Ms. Penn? So that resolves number 7? Right. We asked for them to put a note on the plan, and it will be approved by the Division of Law. So we can delete number 7? No, I think we want to leave it there. Just make sure we get that note on there. Any other comments, questions? Thank you, Ms. Gall. Petitioner? Good afternoon. Abby Jones, representing the client. And we'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. We feel like they've presented all the facts in a clear way. Okay, good enough. Any comments, questions for... Okay, I think that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone in the audience want to speak to anything at this time? Anyone on the commission? Okay, then in that case, let's take these in two motions if we could. First, the zone change. Can I get a motion for that? Mr. Chair, I'll move for recommendation of approval of 1321 West Main Street, LLC. It's plan MAR 16-69 for the reasons listed by staff. Okay. Okay. What's it? Did you say 1321 West Main Street? 1321 West Main Street, LLC. Okay. Plan 2016-9. Gotcha. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve of PLN PAR 16-09, 1321 West Main Street. For the reasons outlined by staff, any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay. Would you like to continue? Mr. Doran? Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 16-32 Fuller et al. property with the seven noted recommendations. Okay. It's been properly moved again by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve the preliminary development plan, MJDP 16-32, Furlanell Properties, and Meadowthorpe at 1353 West Main Street, with the seven conditions outlined by staff. Any additional discussion on the motion? Hearing is saying none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. The motion carries. I thought there was another one. I thought you would like to send a senior house. Six. Okay. Okay. Or this is it. Okay. Yeah, this is Sharon Dry. Okay, at this time we're at the Lexington Senior Housing. This is another abbreviated hearing, correct? Yes, sir. This is on page 6 of your agenda and should also be behind tab 6 in your notebooks. This is a requested zone change for 4268 Sarin Drive. is PLN MAR 1611. The applicant is Lexington Senior Housing 2, LLC, and they are requesting a rezoning from both a professional office and neighborhood business zone to our high-density apartment, R4 zone. Subject property is located along Sarin Drive, but most of its frontage is actually along Chas Drive. if I've used the overhead behind me. Sarin Drive connects from Manowar Boulevard and traverses to the south and continues past the subject property. But it intersects Chas Drive, which provides most of the subject property's frontage. And Chas Drive does circle around the subject property and then intersect with Duval Street. This general vicinity is found by Manowar and Tates Creek Road. So that's the area of the community we are in, Man of War in Tate's Creek. The subject property is approximately, gosh I didn't write it down five acres and they are proposing to rezone it to an R4 zone in order to do senior living housing what they call 32 dwelling units of senior cottages. They are in essence duplexes and fourplexes. Just in the general vicinity you'll see that there is R3 zoning to the south, which is mostly single family and duplexes. R4 zoning to the northeast and to the west. The northeast are single family, smaller residential homes. To the west is a daycare facility as well as an assisted living facility. And then to the north is Tate's Creek South Shopping Center, which is anchored by a Walmart neighborhood store. The applicant is asking just for your history, the property was originally zoned to an R4 zone in 2001, but was rezoned twice between then and now. I'm sorry, originally rezoned in the 90s, and was rezoned again twice between the original rezoning and now, and they're actually asking to go back to its original rezone, which is to the R4 zone. The applicant contends that it's in agreement with the request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan in this location. And they cited several goals and objectives related to residential housing, providing mixed housing types for the community, also providing opportunities for all of our population in terms of addressing housing market needs, and also providing compact and contiguous development. The staff does agree with the applicant's justification, and we also believe that this provides for utilizing underutilized property since the properties remain vacant while the rest of this area has developed, and it's been rezoned for, obviously, a number of years. In addition, the staff also believes it provides opportunities for our seniors that those opportunities are not available throughout our community, but for housing opportunities for that particular population, which is also encouraged by the comprehensive plan. The staff recommended approval three weeks ago to the zoning committee because we found that it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan for three reasons. I mentioned the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the proposed senior living cottages. We'll get that in a minute. that it offers a different housing type and then the fact that it's underutilized property. Our recommendation is contingent on the zoning development plan, which tipped over there, being approved as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Okay, thank you. We pause for a moment for technical issues. Who's handling the development? Are there any questions? Yeah, I don't think there were any questions. Who's handling the development? Oh, Ms. Galton. Ms. Galton, okay. Sorry about that. This is a preliminary subdivision for Coons property. As Tracy was explaining, we have Stanton Drive and Chas Drive. They're proposing seven four-plex living units, and then we have two duplex units here. We have a large gas line that goes through there. That's why we had to split to put in the two different styles of buildings. As stated, this is a preliminary development plan, and we have just several conditions, which are our typical sign-offs. We have to note location of the required five or 15-foot landscape buffer per the zone between the adjacent property. The adjacent property right here, this is the edge of the property line that's being rezoned. this is P1. This is still the P1 property. And there was, during this development, they had an access easement that came through here. And since this is P1 against R4, there is a landscape buffer that is required. And that's what the plan bills put up on the overhead screen. And I also gave you copies of this. It is required of a 15-foot landscape buffer between those and due to the layout of the structures on the property, they had to do a little averaging so they still meet the required landscape buffer going across, but it's going to have a couple different offsets back and forth. So that was condition number five. And then addition of conditional zoning restrictions. Per the previous development plan, there was conditional zoning restrictions on the property as far as with landscaping, and so we just want them to carry that forward. With that, if there's any other questions. Any questions for Ms. Gallin? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Petitioner? Good afternoon. Kevin Rich, 640 South 4th Street, Louisville. I'm here on behalf of the clients. We're in agreement with staff on conditions. I believe we've satisfied the landscape buffer, and I believe the conditional zoning restrictions, I don't think there are any, right? So I think they don't apply, but other than that, we're fine. Okay, that's good. Thank you. Any questions from Mr. Rich's? Questions? Comments? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rich. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any comments from the audience? Okay, then I'll close it and bring it back to the Commission. Any comments, questions, discussions from the Commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Two parts. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLN MAR 16-11, Lexington Senior Housing 2, LLC, with the recommendations from the staff. Okay. Do you have a second? Okay. Okay. Okay. Ms. Richardson has made the motion. Mr. Drake has seconded it. and that is to approve PLN MAR 16-011 Lexington Senior Housing 2 LLC. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, second part of that. Yes, I move approval of PLN MJDP-16-20 Coons Property Unit 11, High Grove Cottages Independent Living Homes. located at 4269 Seren Drive, with the recommendations from the staff. That's 4268, I think it is. You're right. Okay, that's okay. My focal scale is okay. I just want to get the motion straight. Still second. Okay, so we approve the preliminary motion that's been made by Ms. Richardson, seconded by Dr. Drake, to approve the Preliminary Development Plan 16, MJDP 16-20 Coons Property Unit 11, and that's located at 4268 Surron Drive. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you very, very much. I think that ends up abbreviated. Okay. So now we can go back to the, let's see, there's a tailor-made real estate. All right. I'm going to talk about this one to the next one. This is the biggie here. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The next item is on page two. It's item two on your meeting agenda. This is MAR16-03, a zone change request by TaylorMade Real Estate, LLC. This is an amended zone change application involving existing zoning of AU, agricultural urban, R1T, townhouse residential, and R1D, single family residential. And the three zones that are requested are a neighborhood business, B1 zone, for about 5 3 quarters net acres, R1D for about 6 3 quarters acres, and R1T for about 1 and 3 quarters acres. The total zone change involves 21 acres of property, and this property has an address of 4145 and 4220, pardon me, 4235 Harrodsburg Road. This is an amended application because the most recent amendment added an existing parcel that has conditional zoning restrictions to it as part of the amendment. So this is the largest zone change since the property was initially filed. To orient the commission, this 21-acre parcel is on the northeast side of Herdsburg Road, and we are between the signalized intersections of Manowar Boulevard and Military Road, this location, and really between two unsignalized intersections. Pardon me. Old Higby Mill is at this location. I've given you the wrong location. This is military. This is Old Higby Mill, but it is a signalized intersection. The unsignalized intersection in this area is just to the north of the subject property where we have Palomar Boulevard and Stedman Drive right across. The subject property has three existing zones. The majority is AU here, and that is the same zoning found immediately to the south where there is an existing church. But this portion of the property, the northeast corner, is mostly zoned R1T, townhouse residential. There is a very small parcel zoned R1D, single-family residential, and that purports to the map we have on the overhead. The staff has prepared this exhibit because there are so many pieces and parts to this zone change to try to simplify the existing zoning and that which is proposed. The proposed zoning seeks to rezone the area next to Palomar subdivision, which is in an R1D zone, to rezone it in the same category as R1D, and then to have an area next to it, almost in parallel fashion, in an R1T townhouse residential zone, leaving about a third of the property being on the southern or southeastern portion corner to be in a B1 neighborhood business zone. That's what's depicted in the overhead here. For anyone in the audience, we do have extra copies of the map if you'd like to see that. The subject property has been used for either residential or agricultural purposes for decades, but there have been two previous zone changes on the property, and that explains why we have R1T and R1D zoning on the property. Those areas are vacant, although a residence did used to be in the area zoned R1D. Now what is proposed is a total of 71 dwelling units between detached and attached single-family residential housing and six commercial outlots with commercial development on each one of those lots. This is proposed as a mixed-use development, both for the different types of land use and also amongst the housing types. We do have a PowerPoint as well to show you some photos of the property and to try and explain the application as well. This time I would like to hand out to the commission, we have received 21 emails and letters regarding this property. All are opposed to this rezoning. So we'll circulate that to you at this time for you to look at through the course of the hearing. Again, a view of the subject property with its existing zoning and the surrounding zoning, being R1D to the north and west, AU to the south, and multifamily residential across Harrodsburg Road. There's a photo of the subject property. There is an existing dwelling in the existing AU portion, and you can see the line where R1T and R1D zoning has been approved in the northeast of the property as well. Closer to Palomar Boulevard where Syringa Drive stubs into the property from the north. Here's a view of the subject property from one of the existing driveways from Harrodsburg Road and a view of the sign that was posted on the property. This is looking at the agricultural portion of the property to the south. Here's a view of the property looking from the west to the east, Harrodsburg Road, dividing it between property that is currently under development in our R3 and R4 zones directly across Harrodsburg Road. This also gives you a good photo of the nearby single-family homes in the Palomar subdivision that bound this property on two sides. The property to the upper left of this photo is the church that I mentioned that adjoins the property. It has access across from Old Higby Mill Road at the signalized intersection. They also have parking on their property, and they also have an access to Madrone Way, which is a residential collector street on the northwest corner of their land that connects into that stub street. Here's a view looking at the property from the opposite direction, from the east. Again, a better photo of the homes in the Palomar area. The Drone Way, you see the red line there. That is a collector street that in past comprehensive plans has been recommended for continuation on to Harrodsburg Road, opposite the old Higbee Mill Road intersection. Again, a photo of the subject property. The residential development proposed would yield a density of almost four units an acre for the entirety of the site. Just the area that's proposed for R1D and R1T zoning, the density proposed is about 5.75 units per acre. Past comprehensive plans generally recommended low-density residential development for the entirety of the track, a recommendation of five units per acre. So you can see this application picks up on the theme of the 2013 comprehensive plan to make more efficient use of our land for residential use as well as others. In this application, of course, the applicant is also asking for commercial development on about one-third of the property. During a previous zone change request for the property, some significant trees were recommended for conditional zoning. generally in this area of the property, for the audience, this area of the subject property. At first, the staff was somewhat reluctant to recommend that that condition be abandoned. However, we have had dialogue with the applicant and understand that they are willing to consider some tree preservation in that area, but prefer not to do that through the form of conditional zoning. Their preference would be through the development plan process, and you will see an area where those trees are on the development plan in just a few moments. The staff has agreed to that, but we do think that tree preservation does need to be a component of the development plan that's been submitted with this request. What has also been submitted is a traffic impact study because of the size and the amount of acreage and the trip generation proposed from the development, and you will hear a report from Mr. Emmons about the transportation planning staff's review of the traffic impact study submitted with this zone change. As we told your zoning committee three weeks ago, the staff is recommending approval of this zone change since it is proposed that Madrone Way will be a part of the development. The reason being the proposed combination of B1 neighborhood business, R1T townhouse residential, and R1D single-family residential zoning can be found to be in agreement with the 2013 conference of plan. The staff has provided four reasons in our staff report. Those also appear on your agenda. And to briefly summarize, the first is that the goals and objectives encourage an expansion of housing choice and housing near employment in commercial areas. Secondly, the applicant proposes a mixed-use development with pedestrian connectivity throughout and to the adjoining Palomar neighborhood to the northwest and northeast of the subject site. Thirdly, the applicant is proposing a residential density of almost four units an acre, which is within the range recommended for the site previously by past comprehensive plans. And finally, the applicant does intend to preserve many significant trees on the property in order to maintain the minimum tree canopy requirements by the zoning ordinance for this development. We have a second finding that the proposed development generally meets the complete streets concept, with the exception of the Almond Way termination that is proposed, which includes the design and use of right-of-way for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and this is all as recommended by Theme D and Goal No. 1A of the 2013 Conferencing Plan. Before you hear about the development plan or about the traffic impact study, I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time about our zoning report or recommendation to you. Mr. Salley, one other quick question. We were just presented, I think this is from Mr. Jacob Walburn. Have you all had a chance to review this? Yes, sir. I think Mr. Martin will address that in the development plan presentation. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Where is he? I can't see you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page three of your agenda. However, as you should find at your seats, we have passed out revised conditions on this plan as what you see before you is a revised plan for this property. The preliminary development plan, as you can see, is situated with frontage along Harrodsburg Road in this location. They have 1,200 or more feet of frontage along this way. Here is Palomar Boulevard and the old Higbee Road intersection in this location, as you can see here. Syringa Drive, which is a public street right through here, stubs into the property, as does Almond Way at the north, you can see, stubs into the subject property. They are proposing R1D single-family lots. You can see along the perimeter and in the interior, in this location, they're proposing 38 single-family R1D lots. In conjunction with these single-family lots, they are proposing 33 townhouse units. Now you can see that they are proposing Syringa Drive to be continued as a public street all the way through the development to intersect with the proposed extension of Madrone Way. And as Bill stated, this is a collector street that is planned to come out and intersect here at Harrodsburg Road. And again, local street connecting with a collector street. This is a very appropriate street system to serve a development and mimics, to a certain degree, the street system to the north, where you've seen the streets and they connect with Madrone. In conjunction with that, they are showing a cul-de-sac, and this is very similar to the original development. You may recall we had a townhouse development in this location, and it actually had townhouses on both sides of the cul-de-sac. This is the area of the green space in here that you can see. There are a tremendous number of trees, trees that are proposed to be saved. This is the ginkgo you may have heard of. There's a very large specimen tree ginkgo in this location. In conjunction with the street system, which you can see, they're proposing a right in, right out. And this was a very large discussion item between the applicant and staff and a lot of concern about Herdsburg Road and the safety from this intersection and people moving down through here. They will have to build a deceleration lane to allow for the safe turn into the commercial area of the development. They are proposing a private access easement system as well to connect this development and allow movement. Again, you can see here's an entrance up through the center of the proposed development with an access easement here that literally circles around the commercial property to allow access through the development along with reciprocal parking. The townhouses that you can see here are going to be rear loaded. So here's their front right through here, and they're going to be rear loaded off this small access drive to the rear. Now, there is an issue with that access drive that's going to have to ultimately be resolved at the time of your final development plan, and that is you have a private access easement here, and it does line up with this driveway access over here, and this street coming in, and with spacing standards. This is about 250 feet, which is good spacing here. But this access point is something staff would like to discuss in the future and be sure that it can be used safely in this location in serving these townhouses. Again, there's probably flexibility in the overall design to help address that. This is the commercial area that they're proposing. These are rather, at a loss for a word, they're just typical. They're not any specific design. their placeholders, as it were. The applicant has not indicated that they have any users, per se, for these buildings, but they are proposing 4,500 square feet in this location with a drive-thru. These are two placeholder buildings that are 8,000 square feet each, long and rectangular with associated parking. Here we have another drive-thru being proposed around a smaller 3,700 square foot building, and here we have a 13,000 square foot building, associated parking in a drive-thru. You can see access to the easement in these locations. You might recognize this design. This appears to be a well-known drugstore that could very well be what we're going to have in that location in the future. The layout in this area, and Bill was talking about the trees, and staff has tried to illustrate for you. There's considerable availability of green space in the development, but there are a lot of trees on this property, particularly here, the original trees with the ginkgo, and there's a lot of large species trees in this location. We have a lot of larger trees, and, you know, there's an existing house you saw on the property, and it's not unusual around these houses that you find large trees, and that's the case here. And several of these large trees are in direct conflict with the proposed development with the buildings, and that is something staff is going to want to pursue with the applicant at the final development plan. For instance, this is a 42-inch sycamore. Now, that's a significant tree, and that's the type of thing we take a strong interest in and try to preserve if possible. Here we have a 30-inch persimmon. You don't see those a whole lot. And interesting enough, too, there's a lot of walnuts distributed around this property. You know, walnuts can be a difficult tree, but also they're very wildlife friendly and that sort of thing. And it takes them a long time to grow. So, again, our concern with the tree canopy and protecting trees, and you can see we've tried to outline some areas where there's conflicts, is something that is going to have to be resolved at the final development plan when we're looking at the actual proposal on this commercial area for these buildings in this location particularly. Now, again, the street system and the access easements are critical to this development and the flow and function of this development. They are showing pedestrian connections, and of course, public right-of-way has sidewalks, and you can utilize it for walking and biking and that sort of thing. That can also be demonstrated here through the access easement, and that's something staff is concerned about. As Bill mentioned, the drone way and the extension of this collector street is critical to the function of this property. We just received a communication yesterday that the church and the applicant have reached a deal. I'm sure they'll be happy to elaborate on any details of that for you, But we have received that communication that you've seen that, yes, they are going to have control of this property and they are going to be able to build Madrone Way. Obviously, once again, the importance of Madrone Way is key to this. That is, again, something that will be determined. Its timing will be determined at the final development plan. These are final development plan issues that you all are very aware of. Again, this is a preliminary plan. You will see a final development plan that will address the specifics and the timing of the construction of Madrone and the rest of the proposed public street system. We do want to talk about, in the future, the orientation to Harrodsburg Road architecture on these buildings and how they're going to look, as well as vehicular use area screening. The whole orientation towards Harrisburg Road and this important corridor is, of course, something that we're going to want to work out with them again at the final development plan stage. And I do believe that I've touched on the highlights of this development for this preliminary plan. One thing, I know there's always a lot of concern, and this was well discussed with technical. This is a large site, 18 acres. They will have to address stormwater. Now, they're not showing any obvious areas for detention, and there have been some stormwater issues on some properties in this area. There was a stormwater issue identified over here on this property when it came in. There has been some stormwater issues to the east. Well, at the time of the final development plan, they're going to have to demonstrate their ability to meet the stormwater requirements under our ordinance. And again, so that's something that will be addressed at that time. We currently, in terms of the capacity assurance program, that too will be determined at the final development plan, but staff is not aware of any capacity problems in this particular area of our community. There's one other item that's been distributed to you. and that is a waiver request. Waiver requests are a little bit unusual on a preliminary plan for a zone change, but again, it kind of goes to the heart of the importance of the street system to serve this development. The waiver request is specifically for Almond Way. You can see how it's stubbed right here, and they have not proposed to continue it into the property. Under your subdivision regulations, there is a requirement that stub streets be continued. You may recall Stedman across the road. Stedman's set for years and just recently was continued as planned and as required. Well, with Allman Way stubbing in this, it was intended to serve this property. they are requesting a waiver to leave it as is with a pedestrian and bikeway connection into the property. Now, staff in reviewing this, the applicant is claiming hardship. However, this right-of-way extends to the property line. The street is built to this location. It's approximately 140 feet of street they could construct right here into this proposed public street. and that would be an appropriate termination of that street. They have another option, a cul-de-sac. Well, you can see if they were to extend it and build a cul-de-sac, it would probably require more right-of-way, more construction, and impact two or three lots. Staff believes that they extend Allman Way down, intersect with a Syringa, again, public street, public street intersection. These lots are all a little bit larger. Our 1D lots have 60 feet of frontage, which is basically these. These are all 65. These are larger. Slight adjustment to the lotting pattern and the size, and we believe they could actually maintain the same number of lots in this location that they have now and still extend Allman Way, thereby providing vehicular, pedestrian, and bike access into the development, as they have here and as they'll have with the droneway extension. So staff has recommended disapproval of the waiver request. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Mr. Emmons, you're going to give us a traffic report. Yes, sir. and I do have a PowerPoint presentation if we can pull that up. You should have at your place a revised traffic impacts report from the transportation planning staff. It's got a green bar across to kind of signify that it's a revised report. That report summarizes the applicant's traffic impacts study, which has a lot of information. And being respectful of your time today and knowing what your agenda is like, I'm going to highlight that report and hit the main points out of that. I will be available throughout your hearing if you have any specific questions. To look at the revised traffic impact study report, the applicants did revise their traffic impact study in September. If you remember the original submission in July, staff questioned some of the assumptions that went into that traffic study and staff questioned some of the development as it was proposed. I'm happy to say that the applicant has updated the traffic study. We are in agreement on the assumptions that go into the report and that they have also made the changes to the overall development that were recommended in July. To look at the vehicular level of service table, they did rerun that. With that, I'm going to very much highlight the three intersections that were looked at. The first one that I wanted to highlight is intersection number two. That's the Palomar Drive and Stedman Way at Harrodsburg Road intersection. The traffic study essentially shows that that intersection is bad. It's bad today. It's going to be bad in the future. The good news is that whether this property develops or doesn't develop, it has very little impact on that particular intersection. The Madrone Way connection, which is the collector street, and I'll talk more about that, and I know that that will be a major topic of discussion at today's hearing. The Madrone Way connection will actually, as we look at it, it will operate at kind of a level of service, I believe, E, which is an acceptable range, especially if you take into account that having the Madrone-White connection will actually relieve some of the difficulties of the Palomar Drive intersection, especially during peak times. That makes Madrone Drive, which is at a signalized intersection, extremely important. And then the final intersection that was looked at is the right-in, right-out intersection directly to Harrodsburg Road for the commercial development. as this application originally was submitted there was a lot of concern about that but I'm happy to report that the traffic study shows that now that it is a right in, right out with a closed median and with the appropriate deceleration lane coming down that it will operate as intended the staff recommendations on this we do have A through F still on that The primary two staff recommendations are, first, that the Madrone Way be built with the first phase of development. I know that Tom mentioned that the timing of the construction Madrone Way will be determined at the time of the final development plan. As a transportation planning staff, we highly urge you to have that road built with the very first phase of development. the traffic study, everything is kind of dependent upon the street connectivity there. The second one, and the applicants are showing this, but that the Harrodsburg Road entrance be a right in, right out. We want to make sure that at the time of the final development plan that there's not a switch on that particular intersection. Looking at the subject property and kind of looking at the collector system connectivity, I wanted to kind of run through just kind of visually the importance of the Madrone Way connection. As you can see, this is just from Google Maps looking north as you've got Harrodsburg Road and Manowar, the two arterial roads highlighted in green. And then we've got the collector system, which is Lion Drive, Palmetto Drive, Palomar, and Madrone Way as they're coming through there. Over the years, the Palomar Subdivision, oh, I think the next slide brings in the signalized intersections, but Palomar Subdivision actually only has two access points, Palomar Boulevard and Harrodsburg Road and Lion Drive at Man of War. Only one of those is signalized. Over the years, there have been other connections that were proposed for the Palomar Subdivision that were lost, the first one being to Bowman's Mill to the south. There was a connection originally proposed at that location, and it was decided by the Planning Commission and amongst other opposition that that connection should be deleted, and it was. Then there were two other opportunities where the commercial properties along Harrodsburg Road were going to have the possibility of connecting and providing some release valves for the neighborhood. In both of those, in one, the South Elkhorn Village to the south, there is a gate. The street comes into the parking lot, and there's a gate that can be opened in emergencies. And for the northern one, the way that it was developed, it was developed with cul-de-sac, so there is absolutely no opportunity to make a connection there. All of this kind of gets back to the importance of, through the different decisions that have been made, there are only two ways in and out of the Palomar Subdivision. And that's really why this Madrone Way connection is so incredibly important. looking back at the plans the original zone change from 1986 madrone way was planned as a collector street pointing right towards this particular intersection and the it's been there it's been built as a to collector street standards it's been there for the entire time in fact part of the reason why whenever they redid the harrodsburg road improvements and they brought old higby mill and they realigned it up to that intersection and put the light there is because madrone way is planned to come out to that signalized intersection by doing that it will give you a third way in and out of this and give palomar subdivision access to two signalized intersections The traffic study shows that by doing that, especially during peak hour times, that it will be able to take some relief off of the Palomar Boulevard and Harrisburg Road intersection. I know that one of the major concerns of the neighborhood has been cut through traffic. As people are coming north into Lexington and they cut into Palomar Boulevard over to Palmetto and work their way up to the Lion Drive, Essentially, people are trying to avoid making the left-hand turn at Harrodsburg Road and Manowar. Whenever you look at the traffic studies, whenever you look at the numbers, it actually takes more time. It's a longer distance, and it takes more time to do that. However, there is the perception that you're moving forward and that you're making progress, so therefore people do continue to do that. oftentimes as you're driving along you're kind of that decision point as a driver as you're coming up harrisburg road and you can look and see the congestion up there you make that decision as you're coming up on palomar boulevard to make the left into the subdivision to try and do the cut through i do believe that if there were more connectivities in the in the overall area that there would be more options and you'd be able to distribute the traffic more. That hasn't quite played out over the years. So what we're left with are the collector streets and the collector street system. I don't believe that you're going to get rid of the thought process of the cut-through traffic, but I don't think that it's going to be any worse by connecting the drone way either. In fact, as you're coming up on that signalized intersection, you're very unlikely to be at that decision-making point if you're traveling into town, being able to see any congestion up at the Harrisburg Road and Manowar Boulevard. I've talked with traffic engineering about this, and the real issue and the reason for the congestion is the amount of traffic that's on Manowar Boulevard. and there are no, Manowar Boulevard is operating at capacity, I mean there is still capacity, there are no plans to increase the amount of traffic that can go on Manowar Boulevard for any type of foreseeable future. The only places on Manowar Boulevard that we are planning to do that at the moment is towards Harrodsburg, not Harrodsburg, Hamburg area and I-75. I believe that concludes all of my prepared remarks. Like I said, there is a lot of information on this, and if you have any specific questions for me now or throughout the hearing, I will be happy to try and step up and answer those. And I do believe that also concludes all of the staff presentations. Very good. You finish right on time. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Edmonds related to the traffic? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of TaylorMade Real Estate. Jake Reardon with TaylorMade is here as well, as is Matt Carter and Jihad Helaney with Vision. we can answer any questions that you may have. I do want to go over a few points with regards to the compliance with the comprehensive plan and our zone change request. We are in agreement with the staff on their report and the conditions that they have put on the zoning. We're also in agreement with the development plan conditions. I will discuss the waiver request at the end, but as a whole, we are in complete agreement with the staff, and so I will try to give this presentation in slightly shorter time than I had originally planned. With regards to the compliance with the comprehensive plan, I think that this project gets to the very heart of what the 2013 plan was about. The plan basically strives to maintain the urban service boundary by pushing projects to vacant and undeveloped land, or underutilized land, excuse me, and look for ways to increase density where appropriate and look to mixed-use projects. What we have here is exactly that. Since 2007, the smaller parcel, the 4145, which is this area right here, has been trying to develop. For a decade, it has been trying to develop unsuccessfully. It has gone through two different zone change hearings in order to adjust different ways to try to do that. It has remained vacant since 2007. The main parcel that's AU right now is certainly underutilized when looking at agricultural land inside the urban service boundary. In a little bit, I'll kind of go over the history of this area, but needless to say, there simply aren't agricultural lots in this area any longer. This is the last kind of remaining large agricultural use. the project looks at it as an expansion of housing choices we are doing it with townhomes and single family we are not doing it with multi-story apartments in talking with the neighborhood they were very adamantly against what had happened across the street on harrodsburg with the reverse reserve road apartments and also the harvey property that is across old higby mill We found a way to increase density without having to go to a multi-story apartment, which I think certainly will make the neighborhood quite happy. Again, it also supports the infill and redevelopment, and we're doing it from a mixed-use zone. One of the key factors on why this plan really works is we're doing basically a step-down intensity to help preserve the existing residential. We have created an L shape of single-family housing that perfectly backs up to all existing residential housing. All existing single-family residential is going to be directly backed up with single-family residential. Anyone who has a house here now, when they look out of their backyard, they're going to see single-family housing. In order to increase density like the comprehensive plan calls for, we have the next little L. And that's through the townhomes to expand the housing options there. And finally, this section to complete the rectangle is commercial. We have three layers of development to help buffer the intensity of Harrodsburg Road and the intensity of commercial uses before you get to any existing residential uses. At its whole, this is, I think, the heart of what the comprehensive plan currently is calling for. In addition, we also believe that the existing AU zoning and the conditional zoning restrictions are inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. Agricultural use is no longer feasible in this property. Mr. Eftington, who has owned it in his family for quite some time, has simply thrown up his hands. It has gotten to the point where he's watched all of his neighbors develop. Many of you all were here in 2013 with Harvey. went from AU to multifamily and single family. 2007, 41-45, the smaller piece of the parcel that's here, went from AU into multifamily. 2006, Harrods Village, that is where Rincon is right now, if you all are familiar. It's a half mile, basically away, closer to Manowar. It went from AU to B1. I want to point out that that B1, those buildings, back right up to existing residential, unlike our proposal. 2005, South Elkhorn Village, down where Ramsey's is at the corner of Bowman's Mill. This is basically one parcel over from the South Elkhorn Christian Church. It went from AU to B1. That B1 building also back right up to the existing residential units. And finally, 2003, Reserve Road, directly across Harrodsburg Road from us, went from AU to multifamily. Simply put, this area is not agricultural use any longer. So we certainly believe that the AU is inappropriate. Now, the reason why we are asking for removal of the conditional zoning restrictions, they were put in place in 2007 and 2013 when the agricultural use for 4235, which is a larger tract, was going to continue. That is no longer the case. These two parcels are going to be combined for one project. Now, by us asking to lift the conditional zoning restrictions, we are not saying that there are not significant trees that need to be preserved. What we are saying is there no longer needs to be a tree protection area along these parcel lines. We are dealing with fence row trees and underbrush and shrub in a lot of these locations. We can get through, basically go through that with Tim Query and sit down, figure out what trees need to be protected. how can we change our development in order to make sure that those trees get protected and come to the right appropriate solution, how to keep these trees preserved. The only trees that we knew for a fact needed to be done are the ones that were identified in 2007-2013. This is why we had this giant green space right here. We've been able to modify the development in order to make sure that these significant trees get saved. We are more than willing to do the same once we figure out which trees need to be protected. We just no longer need conditional zoning restrictions on a parcel line that is going away. With regards to any questions on the development plan, as Tom walked through, I'm happy to answer any specific questions that you may have. I personally think that having these issues not as discussion items but are basically to be saved for the final development plan is the right type of approach when you're coming with a project this size and that's certainly going to get a lot of neighborhood impact. We have a developer that has put forward an idea that absolutely has to have a zone change to occur. We need to know if that zone change is even feasible before LFUCG wastes their time and resources and before the developer basically fully figures out how is this development plan going to change based on issues with the tree protection area. With the sanitary sewer detention basin Tom brought up, it's entirely going to be underground. There's going to be facilities throughout to basically drain to the corner of Madrone and Harrodsburg. All these details will be there at the final development plan, and we'll be able to show any issues that we'll basically be able to resolve any issues that we may have. Before we get to them, we need to be able to know whether this project can even move forward at all. I personally think that that is a good part of this process, that we have the preliminary plan, that we can go forward with these issues. You'll notice that this is not a preliminary subdivision plan. These lots are not hard lines. We are doing this on purpose so we can come back and we can talk about all these issues before it comes back to this body for a final development plan. Now, the big issue that everyone is going to want to talk about is connectivity. This is one of these times where the planning staff in the neighborhood directly abut. You have heard it many times sitting in those seats. The neighborhood wants basically less connections. The planning staff in traffic engineering desires connectivity because it's required in our subdivision regulations and it's a main focus of our comprehensive plan. We are showing Madrone Way as connecting. We are required to show Madrone Way connecting. We are not taking a strong position here. It's on the plan because it absolutely has to be a part of the plan. And I think Jimmy perfectly illustrated why that is the case. What is different here is Almond Way. If you could put up the existing and proposed slide that Bill had on the proposed. Tom used an interesting word that this part of the development is mimicking Palomar. You'll see Almond Way. It is a short little mid-block right there. That is the extent of Almond Way. It does not go back through the development like Madrone does. It is not a collector. It is only approximately 100 feet. The roads behind there do not have this type of mid-block cut through. We do not believe adding what would amount to be a basically fifth access point to this development is necessary for this development to work. We put this forward because we believe that it kind of helps create some type of balance between the neighbor's desire for lack of connections and the planning staff and traffic engineering's desire for connections. However, we wanted to make sure that there still is interaction. We put forward bike paths and pedestrian paths along where Allman Way is because we want this neighborhood business development to be tied in with the very neighborhood it's servicing. we have the pedestrian connectivity. We're going for the walkability that is talked about in the comprehensive plan. And we're shutting down, I think, a connection that really does not serve a purpose to connect. You're looking at essentially 8 to 12 houses that would really benefit from here, and it's a great benefit for the neighborhood as a whole to limit this connection. So that is why we went ahead and put forth this waiver request today, as opposed to waiting for the final development plan, because we did want to show that while it's not an ideal solution with regards to Madrone, that's a collector and that's a different issue than what Allman Way is, which basically amounts right now to a driveway for two houses. With that, I certainly will take any questions. I have more remarks if we need them, but I'll stop talking. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Mr. Lawrence? Mr. Nicholson the pedestrian access if the road does not go through what are you proposing how wide what is it going to look like it is basically a trail system that's going to come back through here we have crosswalks right here and it goes all the way through do we have an actual width on that quite yet yeah do we have a width for the pedestrian right away it's up for discussion to say the least. And we're happy to come back to the final development plan with definite. Concrete, pave, diastolic, something? We're willing to do anything. We just don't think that needs to be vehicular at the end of the day. That's just the sidewalks. Basically, it'd be concrete like the sidewalks. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Thank you. It's time for citizens' participation. How many would like to speak about this particular plan? Okay. Let me divide it into two pieces. Are you speaking for or against? The advisement, not necessarily in the opposition. Okay. Please come forward. If I could hear letters that are in support from members of the neighborhood, I did just want to introduce them for the record. Okay. Thank you. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to speak today. Your name, please. My name is Joe Klabes. I am the vice chairman of the Palomar Hills Association Board. And your address? 4033 Palomar Boulevard. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Again, as I mentioned, we're not speaking specifically in opposition to the zoning change request, But there are some concerns that our neighborhood and residents have expressed with regard to the impact this development would have on our neighborhood, specifically to the opening of Madrone Way. We acknowledge that this is part of the comprehensive plan and is something that's a part of the staff recommendations. But as you'll notice in our revised traffic study, there are backups related to the Manowar-Harrodsburg intersection that do prompt many traveling from the Jessamine County area to cut through our neighborhood in order to get to the Lion Drive-Manowar light. Whether some may question that that's actually helping them get there quicker, it still is something that we deal with on a regular basis. not only in terms of traffic flow, but speed. We agree that an extra exit point in the neighborhood is beneficial. However, having another entry point does create what we view as additional traffic up Madrone, through Madrone, and then up through Palmetto, again, which provides another opportunity for people to cut through our neighborhood. We would like the Commission to consider requiring any sort of mitigation efforts or things that would help calm the traffic going through there. We also would like to see any landscaping buffering that will help us protect our aesthetic character, of which we're quite proud. We acknowledge the developer and his team's efforts to communicate with us through this entire process. A number of our concerns have been addressed and reflected within the development plan as you see it today, in particular the waiver request with regard to keeping Allman Way closed to vehicular traffic. With that, I'll thank you for the opportunity to make these comments, and thank you for your service. I know how much time and effort it takes when you accept a commission appointment. If you hold on just a minute, we have a question for Mr. Penn. Absolutely. So if you don't propose connecting the Madrone Way, are you suggesting that all that traffic that can't go in and make a right turn in or out on Harrisburg Road would come out to Palomar Boulevard? Are you saying, absent the Madrone Way connection, you're saying that all those folks would be coming out? Well, I would contend that we could open up Madrone Way to this development without connecting it through to Madrone, which ultimately reaches Palmetto. So it actually sends it back to Lion Drive? Yes. Well, no, we have an exit at Palomar or exit for our residents. What I'm saying, is there a need to connect here into this neighborhood? because this is where our residents have expressed the greatest concern, that since you connect straight through, you can get through to Palmetto and then north to Lion Drive. Right. So your neighborhood is in favor of what? I'm mixed up on what your neighborhood favors. Well, there are a number of our residents that would prefer not to have any connection whatsoever to Madrone. We realize that may not be something you can accommodate, But we would support strong traffic calming efforts and anything that de-incentivizes folks using that perceived shortcut from Jessamine County. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Bundy. Joe, what is the neighborhood's temperature on Almond Way? Technically, that section is not part of the Palomar Hills Association, but the neighbors that have attended our meetings have expressed a concern that that's just an unnecessary connection there and would increase traffic. So they would prefer to not have it? Yeah, they like it the way it's presented in this current draft. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Just a couple things, Jeff, for clarification. Sure. You used the term traffic calming. What do you mean? Well, I'm told that's the term that the traffic folks gave me. So my understanding is that would be things like floating curves, anything from speed bumps, which wouldn't necessarily be what we would prefer, but things of that nature that help slow down the traffic naturally without additional. I was speed reading as we were going along because in some of the letters of opposition they had a couple of people that indicated something about crash gates yeah the crash gates I would see that as possibly a solution to stop people using the drone in and out but I'm not sure if that's something we would get a fight from that and also they indicated something about stop signage somewhere Or is that still wrong? There are a couple of intersections in Palomar along Palmetto Drive where we have requested stop signs in the past. So far, the traffic count that I'm told doesn't support stop signs on a couple of these intersections. I think this change would probably solve that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the Citizens? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Yvette Childress, and I live in Palomar neighborhood. And I'm here, I just wanted to discuss Almond Way. That seems to be a topic that you're on right now. I live on Mangrove at the corner of Almond Way and Mangrove. And we're very interested in this development, and I can't believe that I'm saying that I agree with a developer. But we do. We agree with the developer in the plans of the connectivity issue, of making it a pedestrian connectivity issue, and therefore it's a big dog-walking neighborhood and everything like that. And I think that the connectivity issue would be greatly enhanced with a pedestrian access only there at Allman Way. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thanks. Anyone else that would like to speak to this issue? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Johnson. I'm on 2109 Mangrove Drive, the street that is just behind the development. And I guess I'd like to suggest and add to some things that have been said. one possibility that I could imagine might be helpful would be to make Madrone Way exit only so that to avoid all of the cut through traffic. I'm concerned that many of my neighbors that there will be people trying to get through our neighborhood very quickly. It may not be the shortest way to man a war but many people are going to try to make it the shortest way to there. Lots of children, lots of, I think, some of the houses in our section of town, not part of the homeowners association, but in that section of the block, they have smaller garages, there might be more vehicles, and there's more on-street parking. And so that's going to create a danger for children who may be playing and with traffic cutting through. That's one suggestion, observation. And the other one is that with respect to maintaining trees, there's a tree line, a beautiful and very large pine tree line in between mangrove and the proposed development. And I would hope that we could maintain that as well to create a natural serenity between the two sections of the neighborhood. Thanks for listening. Thank you. Anyone else from the community? Yes. Hello. My name is Prescott Hill, and I live on Mangrove Drive, backing right up to the proposed development. And first I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I want to thank the developers for being considerate of the neighborhood. I think they've done a good job of trying to balance the requirements of the committee and their business interests as well. Two points I'd like to make are the same as the previous gentleman. That I don't know of anybody in the Palomar subdivision that wants Madrone to connect through. There is already a fair amount of cut-through traffic that not only creates a safety issue on Palomar and coming out Lion Drive, that intersection to Lion Drive to Man of War in the mornings, particularly around school times, is already a very difficult intersection. and I think it would be very hard to argue that adding this cut through would not create more traffic. I understand that Madrone is critical to the development and their easement and would support expanding that into that development but not have it connect through to Palomar. It's not necessary and it really only would create more issues. That's the first thing I would appeal. The second, I would like to echo what the previous gentleman just said. As part of the tree preservation, they may not be historic, but having back to that farm for 17 years, we like our trees. We are not excited about having houses directly behind us, particularly with a higher density. I think they're going to be narrower lot lines than even what we have now. And so one happy medium, understanding, hey, you can't stop progress. Development might be inevitable, particularly when it's zoned in this type of area. But taking down those trees is unnecessary and would be a detriment to both neighborhoods. So I'd ask the committee to require those to remain. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? If not, we'll go back to the petitioner. You have an opportunity to respond. The only thing I want to add is with regards to the tree line on mangrove, we are showing that as a tree protection area right now. There's essentially a tree protection area that goes along the existing houses all the way around the back. Okay. You can see them here, here, all the way along mangrove. So we believe that that issue has been the worst. Okay. Thank you. Very good. Anyone else from the community like to say anything? And believe me, I hear the community. I understand that the traffic and all those things where it might be objective reality in one way about getting there, but perceptive reality sometimes overrules that people perceive of the one thing, it doesn't matter about the actual analysis that's done. but I understand and I hear that. Staff, do you have any other comments from the staff? Mr. Chairman, checking with Mr. Martin. We have no rebuttal. Thank you. Okay. In that case, we'll close this part of the hearing and turn it back to the commission at this time. Yes, sir. Go ahead. And for the most part, I think, I don't know, Mr. Saleh probably could address him. He was speaking. he started the tree grove uh tree tree protection area and so forth and mr nicholson just touched on it the back property line you had a picture up a moment ago that showed the lot and i think showed the property line and so forth can that be put back up we'll sure try and i think it While that happens, the other question would be as far as the agreement of the church. It sounds like it's going to go forward, but if it falls apart, I guess we're going to back up and revisit the situation. I think we would have to look at that closely at the next stage of the development should the rezoning be granted, either the preliminary subdivision plan or final development plan time, we would want to make sure that that agreement had either been consummated or there were some other bits of information to review at that time. Okay. With that picture up, it looks like everything is pretty much in agreement with this, and it looks like you've drawn in the tree canopy or someone's kind of colored in the tree canopy area there. Both of them is a fairly accurate depiction. I think so, yes, sir. I think there is a heavy tree line along the back of the lots on mangrove at the edge of the development. Let's see if I can, well, I don't have a laser pointer. It's kind of on the northwest line of the property. Yeah. There. Okay. Do you all overlay that yellow line on that? Yes. Yes? Yes. Okay. All right, then. The last question, I don't know if it would be for Tom or not. I'm curious as far as the recommendation on Allman Way. it sounds like the staff recommendation is going through to the street, but not through the lots on both sides of that street. Why wouldn't that be? Well, I think that certainly could happen, but that provides a direct conduit then to the right in, right out at Harrodsburg Road for that to happen. I think the staff's concern was just that there be a 140-foot extension of the street rather than a street through the entirety of the center of the property. Okay. All right. The 140 feet achieves the connectivity recommendations of all the regulations in the plan. So just one tier of lots be affected rather than the entire development. Okay. It just really doesn't seem like a, to me anyway, it doesn't seem like a benefit. But, okay, thank you. Okay. Any other discussion, questions? Okay. I think then we are ready for, I think we've got three things to deal with, the zoning activities, the preliminary development plan, and, of course, the waiver. So the chair will entertain a motion for something. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of the zoning MAR 1603 for the reasons provided by staff. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Mr. Berkeley that we approve PLN MAR 16-3, Telemade Real Estate. Any other discussion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay. Second. Yeah, go ahead. The development plan or the... Yeah, the development plan. Move approval of MJDP 1608, the revised staff recommendations. Okay, it's been probably moved again by Mr. Craven, second by Mr. Berkeley, that we approve PLN MJDP 16-08, the preliminary development plan. any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? And now for the final as the waiver. Yeah, as far as the waiver I guess I could move to postpone it to the final development plan or I could move approval of it. I don't think the street ought to connect through there. I'm in favor of the pedestrian connection. But I'll tell you what my choice would be, and I'm just giving my opinion. I would suggest postponing it until the final development plan, in my opinion, to give people a chance to work through that a little bit. I guess maybe the applicant would want it to. I guess it would benefit the applicant if they knew that was going to be so they can go on with their plans. So I'm going to move approval of the waiver for the following reasons. The applicant has demonstrated that the extension of Almond Way presents a special circumstance as Almond Way is a dedicated public road, but very short, serving only two driveways. The termination of Almond Way cannot be accomplished with a cul-de-sac or a dedicated public road in Palomar Hill subdivision, and connectivity will be achieved with pedestrian connection. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Ms. Richardson that we approve of the waiver that has been requested by PLNMJDP 16-8. Any other discussion on that particular motion? Hearing none, would you please vote on the motion as it appears on your screen? Chairman, I don't think that we have the ability to put that up electronically. I'm sorry. You don't have the ability to put it up? You don't have the ability? We do not have a separate item entered in Granicus for the waiver. Okay, so what do we have to do? Voice vote? Okay, all those in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. Opposed? The same sign. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Now we've got this next one. Not yet. This next one shouldn't take us. Ladies and gentlemen, we're still in session. We're ready to move to the next one. It's the Lexington Home Ownership Zoning Map Amendment and Bradley Subdivision Glen Arbor Townhouses. Let me explain a procedural thing that we'll go through here. Number one, I am going to turn over the chairmanship to Mr. Frank Penn, and I will relieve myself of being here at this particular opportunity. It's because I serve on the housing authority, Mr. Austin Sims, who's the executive director, is here. And because of my association with that particular activity, I am going to recuse myself, and I am going to depart. Mr. Penn is now your chair. As our chairman said, we're going to page 5, the bottom, number 5. And I understand, Mr. Salley, that this will be a full hearing. Ms. White. Mr. Penn, members of the commission, this is PLN MAR16-10, request by Lexington Home Ownership Commission to incorporate it, and it is an amended request. They are requesting a rezoning from a planned neighborhood residential zone, which is our R3 zone. This property currently has conditional zoning restrictions, and they are asking for a high-density apartment R4 zone for the property. The parcels that are included in the subject property are 366 and 370 Glen Arvin Avenue. They are located at the termination of Glen Arvin Avenue, which is off of or to the west of Georgetown Road and very near downtown, Just to the west of the subject property is the Cove Haven Cemetery, directly adjacent, and beyond that is the Lexington Cemetery, which is shown on our zoning map as the large AU zoned area. The subject properties, as I mentioned, are currently zoned R3, but the rest of Glen Arvin Avenue and much of the residential area around it is currently zoned R2, which is our two-family residential zone. As you get closer to Georgetown Road, there are a few other zoning types, including R3, R4, and some B1 and B4. So it is a little bit more mixed use along the Georgetown Road corridor. The historic development pattern for Glen Arvin Avenue has generally been single-family detached residential housing, with an average density of about five dwelling units per acre. In 2006, Faith Community Housing, which was a local nonprofit organization, proposed rezoning these two subject properties and were successful. At that time, the comprehensive plan recommended medium-density residential land use at this location, which in the old comprehensive plans has a range of density of five to ten dwelling units. They were proposing five townhouses at that time, which was just slightly above the 10 dwelling unit limit of that particular recommendation. The Planning Commission and the Council found that that was substantially in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and they put a conditional zoning restriction on the subject property to limit the density so that it would comply with the comprehensive plan. So the restriction for the property as it exists today is for five dwelling units. The applicant is now proposing to develop the property with 11 townhouse units, and instead of facing them onto Glen Arvin Avenue, orienting them to the side to face the Cove Haven Cemetery. Since the previous zone change was approved with conditional zoning restrictions, the only way for them to seek to have that removed was through another zone change. Their first filing that came in was to modify the conditional zoning restriction, but there wasn't a substantial justification that the staff could agree with related to what had changed in the immediate area to justify an increase in density. and remove that restriction. We spoke to the applicant's attorney and suggested that rezoning to an R4 zone would actually meet their objective, but take away that same requirement of what has changed, and rather their justification needed to be related to how their proposal met the comprehensive plan and not related to the particular density restriction. So the applicant did revise their zone change. They amended it and amended their justification to address the Comprehensive Plan. They cited several goals and objectives related to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, which they believe they're meeting, including providing for affordable and accessible housing to meet needs of older or disadvantaged residents, supporting infill and redevelopment as a strategic component of growth, providing for a variety of housing types in the neighborhood, encouraging affordable housing for all citizens and then lastly encouraging infill opportunities outside of downtown. This development will provide attached single family dwelling units which provides for a mixture of housing types in this area. In addition, the Housing Authority will maintain the units within their inventory as subsidized rental units for utilization by eligible low-income residents. this property was identified in 2013 as part of the vacant land inventory and so it was identified as an opportunity for infill and the staff believes that meets that particular goal of the comprehensive plan as well the zoning committee and the staff both recommended approval of the rezoning to R4 at this location. The request for two primary reasons that support the comprehensive plan. The reason, though, is the requested R4 zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and specifically its goals and objectives. And then the two reasons that support that, I think I addressed those substantially in my presentation already, but just generally meeting the goals and objectives relating to different housing types and addressing the affordability issues within the county. The recommendation is always made subject to approval of the associated development plan with that, and I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Martin has our development plan. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, the development plan is on page 6 of your agenda. It is Plan MJDP-1625, Bradley Subdivision. Here we have Glen Arvin Avenue as it extends in front of the subject property and terminates here at the cemetery in this location. They are proposing the townhouses, a row that you can see in this location. There are six one-bedroom units and five two-bedroom units. They're relatively small. They average under 900 square feet apiece. You can see they're proposing back porches, decks, that sort of thing in this area, a covered porch in the rear, a lot of green space adjoining the neighbor at this location. They have 17 parking spaces. here's their parking area and of course here's a uh a buffer and a vehicle use area screening will be in this location but of course the the cemetery is here and that's uh but uh again it's very straightforward layout with access off of glen arvin into the parking area there were only really two technical issues with this property and one has to do with the note item number eight revise note 11 to include a zoning compliance permit approval. And what that is dealing with is the fact that due to the drainage, stormwater drainage on this property, and some of that has to do with circumstances on Glen Arvin and the way the property drops off, they may need off-site easements. They may need off-site easements. If they do, when they address that, we just wanted to be sure that not only building inspection engineering, but planning also had a sign-off on the zoning compliance to ensure that those off-site easements were in place. But of course, again, they're not going to be able to deal with that issue if they don't obtain those. And they've already been working with the off-site property owners' staff's understanding. The other interesting issue that came about, again, Glenn Arvin terminating the Stub Street, particularly our solid waste trucks, as they come down here to serve this neighborhood, they don't have a place to turn around. And one of the issues that came about was accessing the dumpster for this site. So they're going to come in off Glen Arvin and access the dumpster, and then it's a very short backup and turnaround for our solid waste providers. Well, this also offers the potential for the gentlemen that are in the trucks picking up the Herbys. They don't have to back down this street any longer. They can actually pull down, serve this street. they can then pull into here back up just like the truck that's going to be picking up the dumpster and then they safely drive on out through the street so actually this whole discussion and the work on this dumpster may very well provide additional assistance to the provision of public services to the neighborhood so that was a an interesting little development in that discussion and with that again these are two stories one and two bedroom townhouses that are being proposed now you're happy to answer questions you may have for me. Any questions, Mr. Mark? Ms. Bundy? So it's okay for the Herbie guys to turn around on private property like that? That's something that we're going to have to work out with them. They're going to have to have public service anyway to pick up their dumpster, so why not have the other truck, which is a public truck, pull in and back out? Yeah. So you'll get something that gives permission for the Herbie guys to do that? I believe so, yes. It will be through the Division of Waste Management's sign-off on the plan. Great. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I'm Darby Turner here representing the applicant. With me is Tony Barrett, who has laid out the site plan, and Austin Sims, who is the executive CEO of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority. And as Tracy indicated, the applicant in this case is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Housing Authority. And basically, Ms. Mundy, to answer your question, too, The Housing Authority is a quasi-municipal organization that is established under KRS by the city. It was done back in the 30s. So it's a quasi-private, quasi-governmental. So the consents and so forth are easily done. We'll take care of that. The other thing I wanted to point out on the off-site easements that Tom indicated, we have had discussions, and actually those will go through just the corner of two habitat properties. So we've got a good relationship there, and if we need those, we'll get those worked out. Other than that, I understand there's some folks that also want to have some comments, And I just want to say that we're in agreement with the staff report and the staff recommendations and are here to answer any questions and otherwise would reserve opportunity to respond to any concerns anyone has. Any questions, Mr. Turner? Is the issue of the 30% tree canopy requirement, is that something that Mr. Barrett needs to speak to? No, sir, I don't think so. All right. We don't have an old fence line. I was trying to head that off at the back. All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this? Ladies and gentlemen, yes, come forward and state your name if you want to speak to this. Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Jeremiah Myers. I'm here on behalf of Lexington Habitat for Humanity. I just wanted to offer our support for the proposed change. As mentioned, we have been working with them to provide the easement if that proves to be necessary. And looking at the comprehensive plan and the need for affordable housing in Lexington, we are happy to see any change that moves in that direction. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next person. Yes, sir. Come forward, please. Where's the guy that asked for the folder here? Is that him? I didn't think it was. Give us your name at the rest, please. My name is John Dawson. I live at 374 Glen Arvin. next door to the Apkin property. My concern is that I don't believe it's wide enough. It's too congested down there now, and it's on the dead end. And what they're trying to put on there, the land is only 100 by 200, and you're asking for 11 units, which it was five. and they want to change it from an R3 to an R4, but you ain't got no room to get in and out now. We don't have any to get out now. Even I'm next door, and when the people come home, our next-door neighbors, we can't even bag the trucks out of the yard. So what I do and everybody in the neighborhood do, we take what we can out of the street and put in the yard. to free up the street. Because the street's only 29 feet wide. And it's dead in. There's no turnaround spot there. And that's my concern about the property. And that's about all I have on that issue. But I think 11 units, I don't think you can get 11 units in that. You got, like I said, my property is the same size. Mine is 50 by 2. There's going to be 100 by 200. And if you did get them in there, then you're going to add 22 more cars in that unit dead end. We can't get in and out the street now. And then the garbage truck can't get down, get the bag out. The farming can't get in. and no big trucks that come down there to service us can get down in there without hitting somebody's fence. All our fence posts has been hit, which they ain't been out there to check it out. They just want to change it, it's own change. I don't think it should be allowed myself. Here's out checking it out. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? Yes, sir. There's a guy. Good afternoon. My name is Charles Robinson. I live at 384 Glen Arvin Avenue. And I keep looking at this paper, and it says growth, growth, growth. There's no growth down there on Glen Avenue. Why would you want to put senior citizens, people down there, cram them in a space like that? If anything happens, ambulances can't get down there, fire trucks. You know, our senior citizens need open spaces, spaces where they can thrive. They cannot thrive in that little area. 11 units? Come on. Come on. I mean, that's my concern. You know, we need to be helping young people buy homes and houses. You know, that's enough laying there for a home. 11 units for senior citizens. I don't think it would work and wouldn't help our senior citizens. That's all I have to say, sir. Thank you for coming down today. We appreciate it. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am. Come forward and state your name, where you live. Good afternoon. My name is Yvonne Jones, and I live at 415 Glen Irvin Avenue. And I have a concern about the house being built because it is, as the gentleman said, congested up there. I've been up there 27 years, and I am a counselor patient now. Paramedics at my house all the time, and the trucks, like I say, the paramedics can't turn around. It's really a problem up there, and there's a lot of traffic, and people ride up through there like it's a freeway, young people. And the traffic, when you have company, nobody has nowhere to park. They've got cars parked all over the street now. Anyway, so it's very congested up there. but I don't know. That's just a concern I have because I live there. Sure. And like I say, I've been there 27 years. I mean, the housing is good, but I'm a senior myself, but I just don't know whether to work or not. They just need to do some more investigating before they make our decision, I would say. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. Come right here. Excuse me. My name is Charles Smith. It was 424 glenn arvin avenue the street is congested right now and i've lived there for 50 years i guess on glenn arvin and i would hate to see all the apartments come in because it is a residential area and to change it one lot to our four would be not in command with the rest of the street for just that one lot. So that's my concern, that to change it to all four in those apartments and buildings. Of course, I understand that senior citizens have to live somewhere, but that's a wrong error to put a senior citizen place in a small area like that because it's backed up. So that's my concern. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming. Any other kids in comment? Yes, sir? Might as well. Yeah, you might as well come on. My name is Cecil Woolfolk, and I live at 385 Glen Arvin. And I wasn't planning on coming up here, but I'm up there. But look, they have already put in our outreach center on the other end of the street, and it serves the homeless. And I'm proud of that. But they don't even have a place to park, so they use a church lot, and it's 50 or 60 cars in that church lot every day. And if the church lot doesn't let them park, but like I say, when they have wheels to bring some of the people in up there, they just stop in the middle of the street, and it takes you 20 minutes because they've got to take the people out, take them in the outreach, bring them out. and when they get their supplies, the trucks are just, you know, you just can't get off the street. But I was listening to you all mention that you was putting four units to an acre. I said that was satisfying. How do you put 11 on a half acre? You know, because this lot is not even a half acre. That's all I have to say. Thank you for coming. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? If not, rebuttal. Petitioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things. One, and I think it was in Tom's report, there are 11 units. Six of those are one bedrooms and five of them are two bedrooms. So it's a total of 16 bedrooms. The five dwelling units that were on there before were, I think, between two and three units. So actually, bedroom units, you're not talking about much difference. The other thing that is significant about this plan, I think there's 16 off-street parking spots in this development. and as pointed out by tom earlier too one of the issues that the residents we just heard talking about was the congestion and inability to turn around well this solves that because anybody can come to the end of the street turn in back up and they've got a place to turn around so we we're trying to be creative as as you know with the affordable housing it is not limited to seniors. This is general housing stock of the Housing Authority. But it is one bedroom and two bedroom units. So they're small units. So I just wanted to, I think, address the concern that at least answered the concerns of the folks who I understand it's a congested street. But this should alleviate quite a bit of that by providing a significant amount of off-street parking and the ability to turn around. That's all I have unless you all have any questions. Any questions from Mr. Turner? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you. Staff? You don't have any rebuttal? Well, we'll close the public comment part of it. We've had the rebuttal side. I'll turn it over to the commission. Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. O'Neill. I'd like to, I guess, hear from the fire department as far as their ability to get down a congested street. Captain Greg. Hello, Greg Lingle, Division of Fire. The residents are correct. It is a tight road with parking on both sides. The way we, Lexington Fire, respond to this is basically you pull in and you have to back out. This plan may, we're hoping, will help relief with pulling in and out. I did make a suggestion to Mr. Barrett at one time about flipping the units to where the parking is and the parking to where the unit is and make a better three-point turn for vehicles, vehicles but I think there was an issue with that. It couldn't happen. But I think as far as the turning radius, I hate to say it is what it is. Right now we've got to back out. I think where the dumpster is, it will provide us some relief and hopefully with the sanitation or they stated the wheels give them some opportunity to turn around. But right now we're driving in, back and out. Yes, sir. So I don't know if that helps or answers. You're saying you can get down in there, though? If we get around, we can get down in there. It might take us a minute to get out. Okay. Any other questions, sir? Captain? Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Mr. Kravitz. I'm going to move approval of MAR 16-010. to 11 for the reasons provided by staff. Okay, sir. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. Vote when you see it comes up on the screen. You want to do the development plan? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the development plan MJDP 16-25 for the 10 reasons there. Is there a second? Second. Chair Bittbaden, second. Joe, all in favor, vote on the comes up on the screen. Thank you, sir. Chair Bittbaden, we will take a five-minute recess and I'll go out and find our chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, we're back from recess. Thank you all for hanging in there, and a special thanks for your patience. We're on the, I think, Boone Creek Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment. Let me give you a full warning on something, and that is that council comes in here at 6 o'clock. So what we're going to do, we will start and go through at least the staff's part of the presentation, see how far we go with that, and then after that we'll move to the other building and complete our deliberations over there. Sorry for the inconvenience, but we don't want to rob anybody of any time, but we do have some, like I said, council members who would like to occupy their positions here, so please forgive us. With that, are we ready to move forward? Mr. Chairman, thank you. Staff has three presentations for you this afternoon. I will cover the zone change request portion. Mr. Martin will present to you the staff's review of the preliminary development plan. Okay. Can I interrupt for one other thing? And I know the time has already started, but we'll add another minute to it. But the attorneys for both sides have indicated that they wanted some extra time. So we did grant a little extra time to both the applicant for the community as well as the staff to do that. But we will keep up with the time here on the monitors here as such. We won't count that against you as such. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You were very gracious to grant the staff extra time. We will do our best to hit the 30-minute mark as best that we're able. Thank you. I will say just one more thing to all of the parties. Remember, in order for your words to be immortal, they don't have to be eternal. So I just want to... This item does appear on page 8 and 9 of your agenda. It is MAR 16-13 Boone Creek Properties, LLC, doing business as Boone Creek Outdoors. The zone change request portion of their application is a change from an existing AR, agricultural rural zone, to a requested AN agricultural natural zone. This involves 41.74 net acres of property being 8291, 8385, a portion of those two addresses on Old Richmond Road, and a portion of 8385 Durban Lane. The staff report should be in your notebook, and as you can see on your agenda, the staff recommendation appears at the bottom. Staff has received several letters regarding this application that I'd like to circulate to you at this time. There are three in favor. One from Ms. Patricia Rucker, one from Ryan Sharp, and one from John Park. The two letters of opposition are both from Walt Gaffield with the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. One addresses the zone change and the other the conditional use permit that you'll hear about just a little later in the year. The subject properties are in the very southern portion of Fayette County on Old Richmond Road, a very short distance north of an interchange on I-75 at Old Richmond Road. This is exit 99, about a mile from the Kentucky River. It's here where the interstate bridge goes over the river into Madison County. Old Richmond Road is a federal highway. The subject properties are all of the two addresses I mentioned and then a portion of 8385 Durbin Lane. Durbin Lane parallels the interstate at this location here. Old Richmond Road, of course, crosses the interstate just at the interchange. The existing zoning is agricultural rural. They're asking for AN, agricultural natural. An outdoor recreational facility does exist on a portion of the 8291 Old Richmond Road property. It's called the Angler's Club. This is a conditional use that's been approved for about 15 years or longer. And it is in operation very close to Boone Creek, which is the dividing line, if you will, between Fayette and Clark counties. It's depicted here. Of course, that is the edge of the subject property on its eastern terminus. It's bounded to the west by the highway and by properties to the north and to the south. The entire zoning in this particular area is a R. This would be the second zone change requested to the AN zone. And the bulk of the request, the heart of the activities that are proposed, are a conditional use permit for a tree canopy tour, which includes zip lines, sky bridges, a floating staircase, a rappel station, ladders, and platforms located in numerous trees on the property. A portion of the site, and that would be the northern portion, was proposed for rezoning two years ago to an AN zone. The Planning Commission did hold a lengthy public hearing on that request and in September of 2014 voted to recommend approval of that zone change. There was also a request corollary for a conditional use permit for recreational facilities at this location, and the Planning Commission did not vote to approve that use. Therefore, the applicant withdrew their rezoning request prior to it being forwarded and reviewed by the Urban County Council. Since that time, the community has had a text amendment which has revised many of the recreational land uses that are permitted in our zoning ordinance as conditional uses in the agricultural zones, our residential zones, and also many of our commercial zones. Here's a map of the subject property that mirrors the one I've pointed to here, showing the zoning as well. an aerial photograph of the property. The properties closer to the creek, obviously, have greater topography, tremendous tree stands, as does the northern portion of the property, although there are a few open meadows on the southern portion of the property. The trees are primarily proposed for the conditional use, although some of the meadow areas do have uses planned for them, as you'll see in a few moments with the development plan. Here's a view of the proposed welcome center. This is a non-conforming structure that's been on the property for a number of years in fairly close proximity to Old Richmond Road. You see the parking area that used to exist for the non-conforming restaurant and truck stop that was on that site for some time many, many, many years ago. This is a view of Old Richmond Road looking to the south in the direction of the interchange. It's not visible in this photo, but it's just around that curve, if you will, to the right. Here's a view of the signs that were posted on the property, advertising your hearing this afternoon. The Rural Land Management Plan is reviewed because this zone change proposes one of the land uses that was recommended in that plan, which was adopted by the Commission in 1999. The Natural Areas category is shown on the staff exhibits that were handed out to you, And these are some of the excerpts from the plan that describe the land uses that were anticipated in the natural land use area. In looking at the exhibits, they primarily are for certain areas that are physically unique and different from the vast majority of other rural lands in Fayette County, the rural part of the county, but primarily not with their association to agriculture. They have a number of characteristics in association with the Kentucky River and its tributaries, as Boone Creek is. It's noted in the plan that approximately 90% of these lands have a high degree of environmental sensitivity, including floodplain, riparian, steep slopes, and woodland areas associated with them. And finally, the policy emphasis for lands in these categories should be for preservation and enhancement of land in a natural state with a minimum of intrusions. I would go on to anticipate that much of the testimony you'll hear from everyone today will be on that last point. Here's a version of the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan. And the subject property is in the lower portion of the county here for the audience right in this area. That dark green does indicate the lands that are recommended for the natural land use designation. This is a number of the items that I've already covered, citing portions of the Rural Land Management Plan and this land use category. The comprehensive plan is more recent, 14 years newer, and it does have some goals and objectives that do speak to the staff at least in part of this application. The goals and objectives generally support uses that promote and enhance tourism, support the agricultural economy, horse farms, general agricultural, and the rural character of the rural service area. In addition, protecting the environment in theme B of the comprehensive plan. The staff recommendation in concluding our report is for approval of this rezoning. For the reasons that are listed in our staff report and on the agenda, the requested AN zone is in agreement with the Rural Land Management Plan's recommendations for a natural area's land use at this location. Secondly, the 2013 goals and objectives encourage the development of appropriate attractions and supporting uses that promote and enhance tourism, support the agricultural economy, and protect the environment. And finally, our recommendation is made subject to approval and certification of the development plan that's been filed in conjunction with this request. That plan's entitled Boone Creek Properties and H.G. Early Snyder Family Farm, LLC. Prior to hearing the staff's presentation on the development plan and the conditional use permit request, I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have about the staff's report on the zone change portion of this application at this time. Any questions? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. What is the acreage on the Durban Road portion? That tract? I do not have that in my notes, but I will look at the survey map and answer that question for you. Any other questions? Yes, sir, Ms. Stollens. I guess as a follow-up to that, there's three different addresses. are these three properties owned by the same individual, or are we talking about different ownership? I'm pretty sure they have different ownership. Again, I do not have the application with me, but I will check the application and answer your question on that. Any one of the pieces, would we be considering a split zoning? I beg your pardon? Would we be considering a split zoning on any one of the pieces of property? Yes, sir. The property at 8385 Durbin Lane is very large, and only a small portion of that is proposed to be rezoned to AN. So this tract, yes, would have a split zoning if the application is approved as has been requested. Okay. We may get to this later. Are we used to approving conditional uses across property lines? Conditional uses across property lines? It's not, I would say, common to have applications for conditional uses that involve more than one property, but it's also not prohibited by any of our regulations. The Commission conceivably could even approve a portion of the property that's before you today for conditional use, should you recommend approval of the rezoning. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. We'll get those answers to you before the staff presentation's over. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with the zone change is on page 9 of your agenda. It is Major Development Plan 16-29 Boone Creek Properties. And we have also passed out for you a yellow piece of paper. I hope you have a yellow one. Very good. That's Boone Creek. That's our revised conditions. This is a preliminary development plan that is associated here with the zone change. And you can see when you look at it, of course, obviously, requesting AN, it's a very interesting site. There are a lot of environmental circumstances and conditions on the site, and you can see how dark it is. And that is the contour lines. So we know it's a very steep, steep, steep slope down into the Boone Creek Gorge, which is this area that you can see through here. Here is Boone Creek. And again, this is evidence of the steep slopes that exist. And then there's little hilltops. That happens to be a pond here, little areas up in here. Here's Old Richmond Road. This is the existing welcome center. Here's the parking area they propose. It's one-way circulation through the parking area. There are 36 parking spaces available on that lot. Overall, including the Angler's Club, which is in this location, There are 60 spaces on the property. Staff attempted to highlight for you, this is the old road that goes down and, of course, leads to the fishing lodge. Here is the proposed hiking trail down in this area and curls down once again and ends up near the old mill site, which was one of the historical cultural aspects on the property. We've also, again, tried to highlight and circle certain site characteristics and things that exist on the site. Here's the natural spring in this location. Here we have the kayak storage area and where they'll have their kayaks and canoes. We've highlighted what are the platforms that are associated with the canopy tours. And again, observation deck, training area. we've tried to highlight where they again another proposed overlooked platform in this location there's the existing house in in this location as well where they'll the caretaker is either going to be here or in this location this is the children's play area and again the effort that staff was just trying to identify some of the areas of the activities on the site and this is particularly important to the conditional use request because of the various activities that they'd like to have in terms of the guided tour with the hiking, the children's area, the platforms, the rope areas, these things are very important because otherwise there's not a whole lot on this development. You know, there's small structures, small decks, things like that. It is all about the outdoors and the natural aspect of the area. Now, we have just a few conditions on the plan. There are your standard sign-offs for a preliminary development plan, and again, I'll stress, you will see a final development plan on this property. We have a condition that they denote the proposed caretaker's apartment shall comply with Article 8-3C8 of the zoning ordinance. basically you cannot have kitchen facilities in a caretaker's apartment. They're going to have to denote that they will comply with that because you cannot have that. I know that may pose some difficulty, obviously, but that is in the ordinance. As well, we would like to have them denote that we have nonconforming status for these structures and other things that they've constructed and built that are governed by a building permit they're non-conforming in front of this 300-foot building line and that we needed to note that clearly so there's no so they fully understand and we've brought that to their attention from the very beginning that anything that's in front of that 300-foot building line is non-conforming and the impact that that has on on future alterations changes if they want to enlarge any activity or structure that obviously has an impact they're going to have to be aware of on the property and then at last we were wanting them to show again this comes back to the the tourism activities and they they've shown us certain sites on the plan the spring the old mill the children's outdoor area we've got platforms you can see where the canopy the kayak area over we want them to clearly show us these activities if they have a specific area on the site, we'd like to know where that area is. Now, we know on the final development plan they can further refine that and further define that. But again, just like they're showing us the children's outdoor area here, if there are any other specific areas. Now, granted, some of their activities may involve use of the entire site. I mean, that's entirely possible. But in terms of specific activities, we'd like to have those areas clearly delineated. And along that same line, the canopy tour it's difficult to see on this plan now they're proposing on the plan seven lines however we understand there's going to be eight and they'll have to correct that there's going to be one we understand into the children's play area a shorter one a family line as they describe it and so that would have to be reflected on the plan as well and again that's all back into we want to clearly see where the activities are going to be on the plan. With that, your subdivision committee had originally recommended approval, and your staff is recommending approval of the revised development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Yes, Ms. Bumley. Yes, I can't read from here, but how many activities are planned, and what are they well i believe that's going to be outlined in your conditional use report but they have canopy tour and they have it broken down into zip lines sky bridges floating staircase a repelling area ladders platforms then they get into educational programs ground training rescue training wilderness skills builder training guide training guided hike again and there's this whole list historic and active farm tours kayaking that's one of the questions we had you have a lot of activities for example i'll just say wilderness skills they may take place in a specific area they may practice them throughout this entire area in the gorge on the steep slopes i mean that's an aspect of of wilderness training are there more specific activities again that's what we're asking if you're going to have a specific type of activity show us where now They do have a training area up here, but they are listing quite a few activities. And again, that is one aspect of the conditional use that you're being requested. There's a long list of activities that they are proposing. I just highlighted several. There's still a few more. Natural recreational areas. Well, that's pretty much the whole steep slope and the gorge and the creek, just for instance. Okay, Ms. Dawins. Mr. Martin, you're highlighting these areas quite well and asking and saying that they need to show us where these areas are going to be and provide details as to these. It was a surprise to me after subdivision. We spoke about three of these uses. Why weren't these other uses identified prior to subdivision, and why do we still not have details as to every one of them? The applicant will have to answer that question. This has been an aspect of discussions that have been ongoing. It is a preliminary development plan, and often there are some details that are not shown on a preliminary development plan. But again, some general knowledge of an area in these uses would be helpful. You know, with the size of the plan that we saw the other day and definitely what's been on the computer and offered to us, you know, it's very hard to read. I understand the size is an issue, but it would have been helpful if those uses had been identified by the staff and the applicant during the subdivision. But we can only identify them when they tell us where they're going to be. They were listed on the plan. They're listed as a use, but not a specific area for all of them. We're asking for additional clarification. That's what I'm asking. Why haven't we been going after that already? Well, that's why we're asking for it now. We want it before this plan is certified. We want additional clarification of these areas. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have questions? Okay, Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To answer your questions, two of the three properties have the same owners. They're listed as Boone Creek Properties, LLC. And those are the northern two properties, 8291 and 8385 Old Richmond Road. The 8385 Durbin Lane property is shown as H.G. Early Snyder Family Farm. they're listed as the owner. As to the acreages, the northern parcel is shown as 20.15 acres and then according to the deed for the second parcel 83.85 Old Richmond Road, that is 14.85 acres. So doing the math, that leaves the balance of the zone change for a portion of the Durbin Lane property at 6.84 acres. These are all net acreages, so they do not include any of the road right-of-ways. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Wilson, members of the Commission. The next piece of this proposed proposal by Boone Creek Properties, doing business as Boone Creek Outdoors, is the conditional use request. The applicant is requesting something that is considered maybe a new use that's listed in our ordinance under the AN zone. It was a use that was added through the Recreation and Tourism Zota earlier this year, and that is for ecotourism and agritourism activities. and the uses that the applicant has listed on their development plan and site plan are components of that overall use. The zoning ordinance in Article 6-4 gives the Planning Commission the ability to hear variances and conditional uses when the applicant files for those in association with a zone change, and that is the case in this instance. The staff does have a few exhibits that we have provided, and I believe two of them were at your place, and Cheryl was going to pass out the third. The first was a staff exhibit with the existing, the new text from Article 7-6 of the zoning ordinance related to the Board of Adjustment powers when they consider a conditional use. Those same powers apply to the Planning Commission. Item number four on page one is the text amendment the Planning Commission and Council considered, again, earlier this year, related to environmentally sensitive areas. On page three of that handout from the staff exhibit is Article 8-3, Agricultural Natural Areas, the AN Zone. and it lists, again, the new uses that are allowed as conditional uses in the AN zone. The second exhibit, which I believe Cheryl passed out, hopefully, is KRS 247.238 related to aerial recreation facilities. That's a change to the KRS that was adopted earlier this year. And then the last staff exhibit for the conditional use case is an email directed to me from our director of the Division of Building Inspection, Dewey Crow, which states that under Kentucky Building Code in reference to zip lines and the associated tree platforms associated with those, as well as children's rope walks, that no changes have occurred since their initial review. In their initial review, they indicated or determined that the platforms attached to a tree is not considered a structure. Structures, they are not considered structures under the building code and would not require a building permit. I guess that, just wanted to make sure that was part of the record for this case. Boone Creek Properties LLC is requesting again a conditional use to permit agritourism and ecotourism activities and I'm going to briefly just go through some of the history of this case. I know the Planning Commission is well aware but for the audience we would like to make sure the record is clear. In 2011 the Board of Adjustment considered an application by the applicant for at that time an agricultural market and outdoor recreation facility, and it was an area that encompassed 167 acres. At that time, the Board of Adjustment declined or disapproved their application. In 2012, the applicant filed a lawsuit challenging that decision, and that is still pending in Fayette Circuit Court. Later in 2012, the applicant went back to the Board of Adjustment and asked if the board would consider a modified application, basically reducing the size of the proposed canopy tour and outdoor recreation facility. And at that point, because of the lawsuit, the Board of Adjustment declined to consider a further application. In 2013, the applicant chose to move forward with their use and were issued a notice of violation. It was upheld in court and by the Board of Adjustment, and then the applicant ceased the operation, although some of the facilities that we're talking about today have been constructed on the site. 2014, the Planning Commission considered a very similar request to the one before you today. That was for a conditional use to operate an outdoor recreational facility for about 20 acres of land, and that although the zone change was recommended for approval, the conditional use case ended in a deadlock of 5-5 tie that day. I mentioned in our exhibits a little bit that there's been some regulatory changes since the Planning Commission last heard a case similar to the one you're hearing today. In the AN zone, there were additional conditional uses added as part of the Recreation and Tourism Zota. including all of the applicants' proposed uses today. In addition, there's been an environmentally sensitive area, ZODA, which included a new piece in the BOA section of our ordinance related to Board of Adjustment applications. It allows for the board to consider environmentally sensitive areas similar to the way the Planning Commission does and further restrict those if necessary. And then lastly, the Kentucky Revised Statutes were updated 247, and that is the one we handed out. It defines aerial recreation facility as well as canopy tour and outlines that now the state of Kentucky will be regulating zip lines, whereas before they took a very hands-off approach. They will require third-party inspections, and they will require adherence to ACCT standards, ASMT standards, and or other as deemed appropriate by the state. At this point, the state, because the KRS was just recently adopted, they are still working to develop the KAR, the Kentucky Administrative Regulations, and they hope to do, I spoke with a gentleman at the Department of Agriculture, they're working on that and researching what the correct standards are to implement this requirement and they acknowledge that the ACCT standards are the top standard currently, but that other standards are continuing to come out and they want to make sure they have the right standards available to regulate for the state of Kentucky. So they're researching and developing the right KAR requirements now. In terms of the proposed conditional use, the ecotourism and agritourism activities is rather broad, but the applicant has specifically stated the uses that they intend to operate at this location. A tree canopy tour, guided hiking trails, and equine trails. They also, in their application justification and on the site plan, identified that as historic and active farm tours, but they've indicated to us those are actually the same thing, and they are using the existing roads on the property. They're not adding new trails. They're utilizing the old wagon road, which comes this way down to the mill site, and they're utilizing the roads down to the angler's lodge. They're not adding new trails beyond that. Canoeing and kayaking launch sites, again, they're utilizing a space that is already available for launching of canoes near the angler's lodge. They want to add a recreational outfitter for rental only, again, to support the kayaking on the property. They identified environmental and agricultural education classes. That's one of those uses that Tom mentioned. It's a use, but it may not have a specific location on the property. It may occur indoors in a classroom-type setting, or it may occur on any part of the property to help identify different flora or fauna in the property. And so it may occur throughout the property, and there may not be a precise location. that should be identified for that. A farm gift shop, and they acknowledge that the ordinance limits that to 500 square feet. They also indicate they are going to continue to have an active farm, and so they hope to sell at the farm gift shop produce and other items that they would be growing on that farm, or the livery, I think, which is the fishery for the fish. And then lastly, ropes challenge course, children's outdoor recreation education area, and natural recreation activity areas. They have identified areas located for that, but they haven't identified the precise elements that might make up a ropes challenge course. The staff asked the applicant to provide photographs, and we felt that that would help the Planning Commission make a decision of what kind of activities might be included in a ropes challenge course. and I believe they're prepared to show those to you all today. In addition, the natural recreation activity area is, again, identified as an area on the plan, but there are not specific elements that we know of that will make that up. And again, on a preliminary development plan's basis, usually the applicant doesn't know the precise elements that they hope to build, but may know a building envelope, or in this case, a general area where they propose to operate that part of the facility. I will acknowledge that I did not hike the property again this time, because I know it hasn't changed from two years ago. So I'm showing you some of these pictures are from two years ago when I did, in fact, hike the property. So this is a very similar photograph from the one Mr. Sally showed earlier, looking to the south towards the interstate. And I will also let you know it was taken at a slightly different time of year in January, so there are fewer leaves in most of the pictures. This is the existing pavement and gravel at the top or along Old Richmond Road that would be utilized for a parking lot that would work or be utilized by visitor parking for the Welcome Center, recreational outfitter, and gift shop, which are all intended to be located within that structure at the top of the hill. These next few photos are just examples of the first few trees that have the tree canopy tour elements in them. so you'll see the trees are protected the platforms don't touch the trees they do use these and they'll be able to tell you the exact words the cables and the protection pieces so it doesn't harm the trees I'll just go through these rather quickly this is a view down towards Boone Creek from the first platform The applicant is utilizing gates to restrict access to the property, so that even if you stopped at the top of the hill in the parking lot, you would not be able to just enter the property of your own free well. There are a few of the trees that do have two platforms. That one's a little bit hard to see. there's an existing sulfur well structure located on the property that the applicant would restore and utilize for an observation deck so they would add square footage on the top of that and that is accounted for in the development plan this is a view from the driveway that goes down to the anglers lodge of a few of the elements in the tree canopy tour looking down towards the anglers club lodge And you can see it is a very scenic area, which I know the applicant is obviously aware of and the neighbors are concerned about. This is a part of rural Fayette County that is unique and very special. This is a view down at Boone Creek that flows towards the Kentucky River and across into Clark County. So Boone Creek is the border between Fayette and Clark County. There is one of the zip line cables that crosses the county, but the Clark County planning staff has indicated there is no issue with that. They have permission from the adjacent property owner to do that. And because there's not any stopping of the cable along the Clark County side, there was no issue with extending the cable and the airspace of Clark County. And then at the very edge corner of the Boone Creek property, there is visible a view of the Cleveland Branch waterfall. In terms of operational information the applicant has provided to the staff, they expect 15,000 to 25,000 visitors annually. When you look at that on an average basis over the nine months that they would typically be in operation, That's an average of between 50 and 90 visitors per day. Their hours of operation would generally begin about 10 a.m. and would last until dusk with the last tour proposed to be leaving at least two hours prior to dusk. Again, there's controlled access to the actual Boone Creek via gates. Tree management is occurring by a certified arborist, and they did verify that the trees are healthy prior to installing anything that would be attached to the trees. The education and training classes would be limited based on the availability of parking on site, and they have provided emergency response plans to the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. In terms of the environmental assessment that they've provided per Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance and Article 8-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, they identified the environmentally sensitive aspects of the property. Obviously, there are steep slopes along Boone Creek and the Palisades of the Kentucky River. It's a heavily forested and woodland area. There's FEMA floodplain associated with the creek. There is a spring and cave along the creek bed that is viewable from the base as you come down to the anglers club. And then there's also the subject property is located within a National Historic District. So those are all environmental aspects of the property. In the report, the Smith Management Group did state that the plan development is expected to have a net positive impact on the natural resources of the property and the potential sensitive habitat. And going a little bit further, I wanted to make sure I covered this. The assessment makes that statement based on the fact that the canopy tour is by definition located substantially above the surface of the ground. The children's activity area and the termination of the family tree canopy tour will be confined to an existing open area at higher elevations away from the creek. The existing structures will be utilized as a welcome center, recreation outfitter, caretakers' quarters, and general office space. And then additionally, the ecotourism activities will allow for greater attention to the existing environmentally sensitive nature of the land and controlling invasive species. I think in our first staff report we identified a few issues that prevented us from making a substantial recommendation. One of those was a lack of information on the plan, and the applicant has provided additional information since the subdivision committee met and has provided additional written information to the staff via email when we ask questions about, is a guided tour the same as the farm tour? And the answer was yes, it is the same. It's going to operate along the wagon trail here. In fact, the equine trail is that same trail as well. They hope to utilize ponies and llamas from another farm on an as-needed or desired basis. They will not have stables on the site, and they will not allow people to bring in their own horses to utilize the equine trail. It's the same trail for everyone down to the mill. The previous legal issues, though, that were brought up in our previous staff report identified that the previous Board of Adjustment case was appealed to Fayette Circuit Court, and the case or cases are still pending. But the Department of Law has indicated that that should not prevent the Planning Commission, and they stated this in 2014 as well, should not prevent the Planning Commission from making a decision or at least considering the case today. So I wanted to be clear about that. In terms of the staff making a recommendation, the supplemental staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission yesterday. the staff is recommending approval of the requested conditional use. The existing natural resources and scenic beauty of this portion of Fayette County can't be overstated. These resources are very important to the county, and they should be protected. If left unintended, though, they might actually be worse off than if the applicant were there on a daily basis to maintain the property and manage the property in an intentional way. In addition, they would have annual inspections through the Division of Planning as well as the state through a third-party inspection party. Based on the staff's review of the information supplied by the applicant, the staff would present findings today that are consistent with past recommendations supporting permitting conditional uses in rural Fayette County when the impact of such uses demonstrates a responsible use of rural land. Public access to appropriately scaled activities in rural Fayette County provide for important interaction between the general population and our treasured rural land resources. There are four reasons the staff recommended approval. First, granting the requested conditional use for agritourism and ecotourism should not adversely impact the subject or surrounding properties. Second, all necessary public facilities are or will be available for the subject property. Third, adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that the proposed ag tourism and ecotourism activities will have a minimal adverse impact on the land. And fourth, agritourism and ecotourism activities, as proposed, will be provided within the framework of environmental protection, education, and stewardship. The staff makes this recommendation conditioned upon 21 conditions, which is actually a significant number compared to what we would normally consider for conditional use. The first, I believe, is very important. The condition of approval is provided the subject properties are rezoned A-N by the Urban County Council. Otherwise, any Planning Commission action of approval is null and void. The next few conditions are pretty standard conditions. they would state that the conditional use should be operated in compliance with the plan once certified or any amended final development plan by this commission. In addition, they would be operated in compliance with the environmental assessment and protection statement submitted by Smith Management Group. and the best practices management plan, which includes operational details for the property, as well as the emergency response plan that they've previously submitted, and then also that they would receive or get all the necessary permits from the appropriate entities within the government. The next few conditions are, again, sort of standard. We want to make sure that the septic system is adequate and that it be approved by the Fayette County Department of Health. The next three or four conditions have to do with stormwater management. They should have a stormwater management plan similar to other properties within Fayette County and have their parking lot access, et cetera, reviewed by the Transportation Cabinet and Traffic Engineering. Again, those are rather standard. Once we get to number nine, these are more specific to the application at hand. Installation and operation of the tree canopy facilities shall be certified by the Association of Challenge Course Technology or by one of their accredited vendors with evidence of such certification provided to the Division of Planning prior to issuance of a zoning compliance permit. The tree canopy tour and ropes course and any other activity that might fall under the authority of the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall be inspected by a qualified third-party inspector on an annual basis. Inspection reports, training logs, log tours, all of that information should be provided to the Division of Planning on an annual basis when we do our annual inspection of all conditional uses. And then it gets into more operational restrictions. Canopy tours should be limited to 10 guests at a time and spacing of those tours. Canopy tours shall not, the last tour of any day should begin no later than two hours prior to dusk for safety reasons. All-terrain vehicle use should be limited to only a few permitted reasons on the property. patrons of the anglers club and agritourism and ecotourism activities should not be I guess counted on both sides. Overnight accommodation should not be provided on site except for the caretaker who lives there. Recreational uses and associated improvements shall be as described on the preliminary certified development plan. Such features may be removed or modified as amended via a final development plan, but no additional elements be added at any time unless the Board of Adjustment approves that. The existing variants granted in 2000, that that would be noted on the plan as well. Offices, restrooms, the Welcome Center, ticket sales, the Recreational Outfitters, gift shop, shall all be located within the Welcome Center building along Old Richmond Road or the Caretaker's Cabin. These two structures are limited to 2,700 square feet or amended by the Planning Commission via Final Development Plan. No outdoor lighting or loudspeakers or restaurant food service on the property. Tree canopy tours, if the tree canopy tour ceases to exist, the elements of that tree canopy tour shall be removed from the property to ensure public safety. And then lastly, if during an annual inspection of the use, evidence of soil erosion, tree canopy degradation, or other negative environmental impacts are documented, the Board of Adjustment may consider measures to sustain the land, mitigate those impacts, or to stop further degradation. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. And it is in full in the notebook. It should be behind tab 8. It has the original staff report as well as our supplemental staff report. Good, Ms. Wade. You did well. You have 1 minute and 26 seconds left, so you're right on time. Any questions for Ms. Wade? I'm sorry, Ms. Berkley. Tracy, just to kind of summarize real quick, it looks like under our new AN it says, specifically under conditional uses, there's four bullet points that the Board of Adjustment or whomever is hearing the case shall I'm assuming when you all go through your review, you do this same thing. Yes. And I think that's what you provided us with here. And you have made recommendations. How many hours, weeks have you all spent going through all this information, making sure it's all correct? It would be hard to put a number on. For myself, I could probably estimate, but for the whole staff, I don't know. And, of course, over the course of five years now. So not just a few hours, but we're talking weeks. Yes. On the development plan, I know they list a number of different uses, but we're really talking about three or four primary uses. and I think I heard Tom say that and you through your presentation that those areas are marked on that plan. Now, they may be hard to read because of the size of the plan. I'm sure you can blow those things up, but we're showing where the canopy tour is. We're showing where the trails are. We're showing where the welcome center is. were showing the primary items. Is that not correct? I believe that is correct. I think Mr. Martin asked that they connect the dots between the individual platforms to give the staff a better understanding of the route of the tree canopy tours. But some of these other uses may be a combination of these primary uses, too. And so I just want to make sure that, because it sounds like to me we've got the information on here. It may need to be clarified, but it is there, and all the information that the Board of Adjustment or we are required to have has been presented and has been reviewed by staff. Yes, and in addition to the Division of Planning reviewing information, the Division of Fire and emergency services has reviewed, environmental policy and environmental quality have reviewed information. So the tree canopy or the trees itself, Tim Query has been on the site. Our environmental planner, Kristen Curry, has been on the site. The law department has been on the site. So it's been a big effort. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Penn. Ms. Wade, they talk about agricultural tours. in farming operations. If my memory serves me correctly, this was supposed to be a section of land that was not farmable. It was a section of land that just couldn't produce anything and therefore was not a farm. Now I read through the staff report, not only are we going to have a farm, but we're going to have farm tours and we're going to sell farm products. I'm amazed at this. I believe they want to sell produce. That's a farm product. It is. I mean, I can grow tomatoes in my backyard, too, and it's not. I'm just amazed at the fact that they've been able to transfer a farm that was not farmable and in a four-year period make it farmable. I'd like to know their technique because all of us have land that's not farmable, and we sure can't make it a farm in four years. Well, they have changed the boundaries of the property since the last time we reviewed this two years ago, and it does include actually twice as much property. So before it was 20 acres and was substantially treed and steep slopes. It was this section. So they've added all of this. So to follow up on that, one of your conditions is that we don't have retail sales in the farm gift shop. I don't think it said that. It doesn't say that? So tell me what is permitted in the farm gift shop. If they sell produce, what else can they sell? In the initial staff report, let me find that page, it lists the definitions that we supplied or that the Planning Commission worked on for four years. Farm gift shop is an accessory retail facility limited to a maximum of 500 square feet in size that offers for sale farm products grown or raised on the premises and or memorabilia representative of the farm products grown or raised on the premises, such as hats, shirts, and souvenirs. So this is no different than any other farm gift shop that we would have allowed in our new Zodarec? Yes. Exactly the same. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Hollins. I'm sorry. I've got to follow up with that. Tracy, in your opinion, when you just read that definition of farm gift shop, sell farm goods and products and memorabilia. Does that include tree canopy tour memorabilia? I think it's an interpretation if you consider this a farm that they'd be able to sell memorabilia from their farm just like all of the horse farms want to do. Whose interpretation is that? It would be your interpretation as the conditional use reviewer and or the division of planning in interpreting the zoning ordinance. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? Okay, I think that's it, Ms. Wade, for the time being. I think the staff's available for questions throughout the hearing. Okay, good enough. First of all, just as a comment, not to you, just a comment related to what I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague, Mr. Berkeley, his point about the amount of time that the staff has spent, and I think we owe a good deal of appreciation for that. I might say, just in fairness, though, that the applicants probably spent a lot of money doing this. And then, in fairness, I think the community has suffered through a lot of angst on this also, not to mention the fact that I think I've been here on this council now for 50 years as a result of this. But in any event, what we're going to have to do, ladies and gentlemen, At this time, we're going to recess and relocate the Planning Commission public hearing to the third floor conference room in the Phoenix Building at 101 East Vine Street. Now, for those of you, please enter the Phoenix Building at the corner of Vine Street and Limestone. The meeting room is on the third floor again. And, of course, if you're visitors, please wear your visitor's badge issued by security here. if you already have a badge. If you do not, then you will need one. Now, one other thing that's important, we ask that visitors and applicants not engage the Planning Commission members during the transition to the Phoenix Building as the public hearing remains in process. We will resume the hearing at 5.15 at the Phoenix Building if we could. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for this. Yes, sir. Will it still be recorded? It will be, and it will also be videotaped. Okay. But I will, unfortunately...