# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - December 16, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 16, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5497 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5497?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-12-16 - **Last revised**: December 16, 2021 - **Length**: 8,481 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on December 16, 2021, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed three agenda items, all involving zoning map amendments from different applicants. During the meeting, commissioners took six votes on various motions related to these zoning matters. The commission approved two of the three zoning map amendments—one from Talon Development Inc. and another from the Urban County Council—while postponing the Harrodsburg Road LLC zoning map amendment for future consideration. No public comments were recorded during this session. ## Attendance All members were present at the December 16, 2021 meeting. **Present:** • Ivy Barksdale • Headley Bell • Anthony de Movellan • Janice Meyer • Frank Penn • Judy Worth • Zach Davis • Larry Forester • Robin Michler • Bruce Nicol **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on six items during the December 16, 2021 meeting, with two postponements and four approvals. **Postponements:** • **PLN-MAR-21-20** - The Cowgill, Inc. zoning map amendment was postponed to January 27, 2022. The motion was seconded by Anthony de Movellan and passed unanimously. [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MAR-21-00016** - The Harrodsburg Road LLC zoning map amendment was postponed to January 27, 2022. The motion was seconded by Headley Bell and passed unanimously. [timestamp: 00:00] **Approvals:** • **PLN-MAR-21-19** - The Talon Development Inc. zoning map amendment was approved unanimously. Frank Penn made the motion, which passed without conditions. [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MJDP-21-66** - The Talon Estates zoning development plan was approved unanimously, subject to 9 conditions. Frank Penn made the motion for approval. [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MJDP-21-66** - A related waiver and finding for Talon Estates was approved unanimously. The motion was seconded by Headley Bell and passed without additional conditions. [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MAR-21-21** - The Urban County Council zoning map amendment was approved unanimously. The motion was seconded by Anthony de Movellan and passed without conditions. [timestamp: 00:00] All votes were recorded as unanimous, though specific vote counts and individual commissioner positions were not documented in the available records. The commission demonstrated efficiency in handling routine zoning matters while ensuring proper postponement of items requiring additional review time. ## Harrodsburg Road LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 00:00] The Planning Commission considered petition PLN-MAR-21-00016, a zoning map amendment request from Harrodsburg Road LLC for property located at 4085 Harrodsburg Road. The petition sought to rezone the property from its current Agricultural Urban (A-U) designation to a split zoning of Highway Service Business (B-3) and Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3). The proposed amendment would allow for mixed-use development on the Harrodsburg Road property, combining commercial highway service business uses with planned residential development. The B-3 zoning classification typically permits various commercial activities oriented toward highway and automotive services, while the R-3 designation would accommodate planned neighborhood residential development. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the Zoning Committee had reviewed the petition and recommended postponement rather than approval or denial. The reasons for the committee's recommendation for postponement were not detailed in the available information. Following the committee's guidance, the Planning Commission voted to postpone consideration of the Harrodsburg Road LLC zoning map amendment. The postponement allows additional time for further review, potential revisions to the proposal, or resolution of any outstanding issues that may have prompted the committee's recommendation. The petition will return to the Planning Commission at a future meeting for continued consideration once any necessary modifications or additional information are provided. ## Talon Development Inc. Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 00:00] The commission considered petition PLN-MAR-21-19, a zoning map amendment request from Talon Development Inc. to rezone property located at 7086 Tates Creek Road from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Agricultural Buffer (A-B). The petition received positive recommendations from both the Zoning Committee and planning staff prior to the commission's review. The Agricultural Buffer zoning classification typically serves as a transitional zone between more intensive development and agricultural or rural areas. The commission approved the zoning map amendment request. No specific details about the discussion, concerns raised, or conditions attached to the approval were captured in the available meeting materials. The property at 7086 Tates Creek Road will now be zoned Agricultural Buffer (A-B), allowing for development uses permitted under that classification. ## Urban County Council Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 00:00] The Urban County Council considered petition PLN-MAR-21-21, a zoning map amendment request for properties located at 2850 Georgetown Road and 1490 Bull Lea Road. The petition sought to rezone the parcels from their current designations of Agricultural Rural (A-R), Agricultural Urban (A-U), and University Research Campus (P-2) to restricted Light Industrial (I-1). The proposed amendment would change the zoning classification to allow for light industrial uses on the affected properties. The restricted Light Industrial (I-1) designation typically permits manufacturing, processing, and related commercial activities while maintaining certain limitations to minimize impacts on surrounding areas. The petition was presented for council consideration as part of the regular zoning amendment process. The properties' current mixed zoning of agricultural and university research campus designations would be consolidated under the single industrial classification if approved. Following discussion, the Urban County Council approved the zoning map amendment petition PLN-MAR-21-21. The approval allows the properties at 2850 Georgetown Road and 1490 Bull Lea Road to be rezoned from Agricultural Rural (A-R), Agricultural Urban (A-U), and University Research Campus (P-2) to restricted Light Industrial (I-1), enabling future light industrial development on the sites. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-21-20** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Cowgill, Inc. zoning map amendment - **PLN-MAR-21-00016** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Harrodsburg Road LLC zoning map amendment - **PLN-MAR-21-19** — passed (0-0): Approval of Talon Development Inc. zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-21-66** — passed (0-0): Approval of Talon Estates zoning development plan - **PLN-MJDP-21-66** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver and finding for Talon Estates - **PLN-MAR-21-21** — passed (0-0): Approval of Urban County Council zoning map amendment --- ## Full transcript opportunities. Sergeant Terry, if you don't mind, can you just give us a little introduction about yourself and your years on the force, the police department? Definitely. Well, I'm not from Lexington. I'm actually from Stanford, Kentucky. That's about an hour south of here. I grew up in Lincoln County. So I came here several years ago. I've been with the department about 22 years coming up. Okay. So started back in 2000. So this really is my home, even though I wasn't born here, but definitely a home to me. Yeah, well, I tell you what, we're glad to have you here. Can you tell us a little bit about neighborhood resource officers and maybe inform people about what their roles are in regards to neighborhood engagement and policing? Absolutely. I think the most important thing for us within ROs is making sure they're working on quality of life issues in our neighborhood. So we're not just, you know, we can't arrest, we can do all normal police function, you know, function, but we're also trying to do things in a different way, you know, try and find out long-term solutions for something that, you know, maybe someone's in crisis, maybe mental health, maybe they got something else going on, maybe that we can do to help in a different way. I think that's big for us as officers to be able to try and find answers that, you know, will make a better quality of life for, you know, the citizens that we're policing in Lexington. You know, I know, talking to a lot of the NROs that I, you know, come in contact with on a daily basis. And they don't say this, but kind of how the way I see it is one of their main focuses is building relationships and not necessarily building cases. They're working to gain trust. And I tell you what, in a lot of the neighborhoods, we've seen the benefit of the relationships that neighborhood resource officers have built with community members, neighborhood associations, and also our schools. Just recently, we cut the ribbon at MLK Park for the footsaw court. And the neighborhood resource officer in that neighborhood was very vital in helping us get that done and that project accomplished. Yeah, Brad and Maravichet, Officer Maravichet. Yeah. Let me ask you this. So we have, in the last budget, we put more money towards recruiting more neighborhood resource officers or hiring more neighborhood resource officers. But, you know, we are down citywide in regards to our authorized strength the police officers. So recruitment is, you know, vital now to make sure that we get more officers on the force and that would also give us the ability to hire more neighborhood resource officers. Can you speak a little bit about recruitment and how it's, you know, right now I think we're all acting as recruiters for a variety of jobs, but one of the most important are recruiting for our police department. Yeah, we're definitely down and I know right now eight NROs is where we're at and we're supposed to add five through the additional allotment, which would be great if we could get that additional five, but we all need to do our part. Okay. Great. Great. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Zoning Items Public Meeting. It is now 1.30, December 16, 2021. If I don't get to say it at the end, Merry Christmas to everyone that's in here. And Happy New Year if I don't get to see you before then. First up, we have the approval of minutes. These are the October 2021 minutes. The floor is open for a motion for the approval of those minutes. Move for approval of the October 28th 2021 minutes. We have a motion. Second. Second. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Postponements and or withdrawals. Good afternoon, counsel. My name is Chris Barber, and I'm an attorney at Billings Law Firm. I'm filling in for Zach Cato with my firm, and I'm here on behalf of Calgill, Inc. and their zone change and development plan. That zone change case number is PLNMAR21-20 and page six on the agenda. And I'm here for a postponement. We are still discussing with the planning staff on some issues that they're having, and we just need some more time to work through those issues. Okay. Are you requesting for a one-month postponement? A one-month postponement, please. January 27th meeting? That would be great. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any commission members would like to discuss this any further? Okay. And the floor is open for a one-month postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move for one month postponement to the January 27th meeting of PLNMAR 2120 Calgary. We have a motion and a seconded by Mr. DeMovlin. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Oh, I'm going to back up from that. A applicant has requested that staff request a postponement for their application. This is on page two of your agenda, PLNMAR 21-00016, Harrodsburg Road, LLC. They would like to request a one-month postponement to continue to work with the neighborhood and with staff to resolve many of the issues that are represented on both the staff report for the major development plan and the staff report for the zone change request. Thank you. Floor is open for a one-month postponement based on staff's comments. Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. DeMola. I'll live for a one-month postponement to January 27th for PLNMAR 2100016. Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Beall. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. Thank you. That should put us on page five, which would be PLN MAR-21-19, Talon Development Inc. 7086 Tate's Creek Road. Staff. And I'll start my presentation a little bit further away from the microphone this time. This is for the commission members, we do have a waiver request as well. And Mr. Chair, I do believe that this zoning item has not had any representation of objection for the zone change. While Mr. Martin will have to present the whole of the major development plan associated with this because there is a waiver, I believe that the zone change can be conducted in an abbreviated fashion, unless there is someone in the audience that is here to object to this application. If it is all right with you, sir, I'll move through in an abbreviated fashion. Thank you. This is PLNMAR 21-00019, Talent Development Incorporated. The applicant... All right. Are you out of batteries? I'm sorry? You need some batteries? I think we are just waiting for it to connect. I love it. I love it. All right. Thank you very much. So this is a zone change application for the property located at 7086 Tates Creek Road for 134 net acres and 135 gross acres for a zone change from an agricultural rural zone to an agricultural buffer zone to allow for the creation of 13 10-acre lots and 4 40-acre lots. The subdivision of this property and the zone change for this property is somewhat different in that it is outside of the urban service area. As such, there are no place types or development types, hence it is a rural area and a rural development. Since this is part of the rural area, it is bound by the Rural Land Management Plan, which was readopted in 2017 and reflects a lot of the work that was done in 1999. The difference in a lot of this is that it is a mapped-based plan for the location of this zone, and I will show you a picture of that specific mapped location here shortly. As you can see, this map does not show you much other than the fact that it is surrounded by agricultural zoning. And we are located right along the boundary of Fayette County and Jesmond County. This aerial photography gives you a little bit better of an idea of some of the layout of the area. We do have a significant amount of 40-acre agricultural lots and some 10-acre lots that were subdivided prior to the establishment of the 40-acre rule in 1999. Getting into the property itself, here on the top photo, we have the view into the property following the current roadway that takes you to the winery. This is an active small winery as defined within KRS. Looking across the property into Jesmond County, up Tates Creek Road in towards the urban service boundary, and then down Tates Creek Road as we are moving further into the county. As I stated before, this area is governed by the Rural Land Management Plan. In the 1999 plan, this area specifically along Tates Creek Road was identified as an area for potential buffering to occur, largely due to the fact of the location right along the Jesmond County and Fayette County border. The Jesmond County, which is not under the purview of this planning commission or this government, allows for a slightly denser and more intense land development on their side of the roadway. The Rural Land Management Plan recommends the ability to allow for slightly more dense development to occur along Tates Creek Road with the subdivision of properties to 10 acres to buffer into our more mainstay agricultural land as you move into or north and east of this property into the area. During early conversations, and this is the property of question located right here, there was a real focus on where these 10-acre lots could be developed, And the applicant is within their associated major development plan and within their letter of justification, they did indicate that they are meeting that location. So in the terms of the comprehensive plan, the applicant is meeting the comprehensive plan by placing their area of agricultural buffer land use in this area. staff did see that the applicant was also seeking to uphold the urban service area concept by ensuring that all types of development are sustainably developed both in or environmentally economically and socially the plans recommend for this agricultural buffer area land use for the subject property and the applicant is meeting the location of that and the total of 13 10 acre lots are proposed for that section meeting all of that area that was prescribed by the map as with all zone changes this is incumbent upon the approval and certification of pln mjdp 21-00066 talent estates two weeks following this commission's ruling and with that that was a very brief abbreviated hearing. If you would like to ask me any questions about the zone change, staff is available to answer. Any questions for staff? Thank you, Hal. Thank you. I'll hand it over to Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the plan that you see before you today is as Mr. Bailey has described it. We have Tates Creek Road in this location. Here is the existing farm winery road that serves the property that the applicant is proposing to reconstruct. Here's the lotting pattern that you can see with the AB, proposed AB lots here in the front that do match the location as required in the rural management plan. And then the remaining, these are the 10, the remaining, or 13, the remaining four AR lots, again, are in the rear. The plan was, of course, reviewed by your subdivision committee and is subject to very basic cleanup or standard conditions for sign-off. There was one cleanup condition which this version of the plan does address, and that is denote building line on lot 13-7. Now, it's back in this area. This is lot 13, and lot 13 is a subject of a finding for an access easement on this particular plan. The applicant, again, is proposing to rebuild the existing farm road into a public street terminating with a cul-sac. They are proposing a pedestrian system that will run along kind of the rear of these properties that will allow people to walk through the development and look. And they're proposing to delineate that with fences or trees. And it will be a green space. It won't be a paved walk. But it will be they are proposing a pedestrian system. Those of you on the committee may recall that staff had asked them about the usefulness, as it were, of a pedestrian system in the area. And that's what they've done. The existing winery is up here in this location. And then, of course, the old historic home is back here down as you go over the hill and sits down in that area. And that's where they have their activities and the weddings and that sort of thing. We have water features, a large pond in this area, and then they come down, they follow this drainage area, and there's two additional ponds on the property. The applicant has requested a waiver as well as a finding on the access easements. Now, they're proposing an access easement to run across this property to serve lot 13. You can see lot 13 as it sits in the rear. And then an access easement to follow approximately this property line and up to serve lot 17. Now, again, those are access easements that are being proposed to serve these properties. The waiver that's being requested is for the geometrics of the public street that they wish to construct. They are proposing to provide 24 feet of pavement. A rural section only requires 20. They're requesting to widen that to 24 feet. They are of the opinion that it will better facilitate emergency vehicles, guests to the winery, as well as farm activities. The second aspect to that waiver request is to reduce the right-of-way from the required 60 to 50. So the right-of-way will be reduced. Pavement will be increased by four feet. Now, street trees are required in a rural subdivision of this nature. So they are proposing a 10-foot tree planting easement along the right-of-way. So in essence, although they want to reduce from 60 feet to 50 feet of right-of-way, they are going to provide a 10-foot easement for those trees. And that will allow to help them deal with, I'll say reduce any potential conflict with the drainage ditches that are required, the swales that are required with our rural roads. As you all are aware, they're not required full urban design. Because a lot of people forget, this is a chance to remind everybody, our street system is not just to handle traffic, but it's integral to our stormwater management. That's why we have curb and gutter, is to help control the runoff and direct that water. Well, in a rural area, in this environment, that's not necessary. Ditches are required. That is part of what they are required to do. So they will be doing that. So the trees will be planted in that easement, which in effect mimics the 60 feet of right-of-way in this situation. Now, the finding on the access easement, again, we had this 300-foot building line noted, and it was added. And what staff realized, and this was an oversight on the applicant's part and on the staff's part as well, as we initially reviewed it, in that the cul-de-sac in this location, they have indicated a 30-foot building line off that cul-de-sac. Well, once again, in urban zones, you can measure your frontage off the building line setback when there's a cul-de-sac. And it's very common. You just can imagine building line off of a cul-de-sac. It curls around. That constitutes the legal frontage in non-agricultural zones. But there's a little blurb in that section, and that's it, non-agricultural. So in the agricultural zone, your frontage is still measured at the right-of-way. So in this instance, the issue they're going to have to address is how to meet the frontage requirements off of that cul-de-sac. Now, that's not a subject of today's waiver or the finding. So it is an issue that they're going to have to address in the future, and that's not uncommon. They can address it with the final record plan. They will come back to this body and they'll have a solution that they'll propose on how to meet that required frontage or they'll request a waiver of it. In our initial review and discussion with it, again, staff sees credence very much in this street and in the proposed layout. It does follow the topography. It does follow the existing use of the property. It recognizes that. So these are all positives in making a finding on a waiver and an approval of a waiver. You are encouraged in your regulations to approve waivers that do reflect the way the farm operates, the way the land exists in the topography. And that is, frankly, probably the most common justification for some of our rural waivers on access easements or streets and frontage. So again, it does. This was moved, by the way. The existing access was up here right after this turn, and there's a hill on Tates Creek Road, and it was poor sight distance, and it ran back through here and provided the dam that created this large pond in this area. They moved this road down to this location about 20 years ago, and it's much better site distance, so it's safer at this intersection. And it also provided the dam to allow additional water features to be developed on the property. So again, this street does reflect the topography of the property. The property is impacted by its own layout, by its property lines. Not uncommon in the ag area. We see a lot of, I'll say, interesting-shaped properties in our agricultural area. And so this, again, are all reasons that they've cited for requesting this waiver. Now, staff is recommending approval of the waiver to you today. We, however, want to make it very clear that there's a condition attached that they will have to address this frontage issue in the future with their final record plans. We don't want this to imply that that frontage issue has been settled or resolved. So again, they will have to come back to you to address that particular issue. We are also recommending that the two lots that are subject to access easements, that those easements, you do make a finding that is appropriate for those. There has been concern about access easements. Staff has expressed that to the applicant. We have put it in our staff report. The concern with these access easements, as opposed to if this street was going to be an access easement, it's clear cut. You can see the frontage. you can see, you would know that everybody would share in that access easement, the responsibility, maintenance, and that sort of thing. The concern that was expressed by staff and by the subdivision committee was when you have an access easement that's running through a lot like this, the entire length of that lot to serve this lot, well, it's only going to serve that lot, and they're going to be required to maintain it. Well, there's some concern is how do you control the owners on that other lot from utilizing that access easement. I mean, in short of a physical barrier. You know, if they want to drive on it, ride horses on it, or let their children, you know, ride their bikes and things up and down. I mean, again, we see very strong potential for conflict. Now, in all honesty, that's not a government issue per se. However, we find in the last few years we've been dragged into these conflicts. We have been dragged into court on several occasions over access easement issues. To my knowledge, we've been dismissed from every lawsuit. But again, we get dragged in. We spend time and resources in dealing with what in fact are private property issues and private disputes. So we have a concern there about making sure that they're prepared to address this and address it in a way that hopefully will prevent problems in the future for the residents out here and the government as well. So that's the caveat that we have as a concern for the access easement again to serve 13 and the one that is serving lot 17. I know that they are prepared to address that with you today, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on the plan or the waiver. Again, your subdivision committee do recommend approval, and staff is recommending approval of the waiver and the finding as well today. Any questions for staff? Mr. Penn? Tom, in the subdivision committee we talked about the maintenance of the access, of the access easement, where it goes through that lot and where there's no physical barrier to keep other people from using it. How do you establish on the deed or on the plat who's responsible for the maintenance? We have a, excuse me, go ahead. Go ahead. We have a note in our land subdivision regulations that spells it all out. It's big and long and takes up a lot of room. And it's very clear. And it says the owner's responsible. And it states in there the government's not responsible. It's all very clear. I mean, we've dealt with this issue for many years. And it's primarily in an urban setting that we see these. But, again, it's not unusual with a farm property. Well, in other counties, that's a serious issue. And anytime we do access easements in Fayette County, anything we can do to delineate who's responsible for maintenance, because that's a long stretch of road, and when it comes time, it has to be repaired, and it all falls on one landowner because it goes through his property and becomes a real problem. And then you get people putting up gates, doing all kinds of stuff just out of spite. And I'd just like for us to be as clear as we can be on not only establishing this easement, but how it's going to be maintained. Yes, sir. And again, I think we can be. It's going to be incumbent upon the applicant to do the appropriate deed restrictions. And, of course, make that very clear to any purchasers, this is who's responsible. And again, I'm sure they're prepared to address that today. I will have the same question for the applicant. I wanted to know where the staff was on this. Yes, sir. I'm not seeing any other questions, John. I have a question. You may have already explained this, but why is an additional access easement required to lot 13 when there's one that runs all the way around the perimeter? That's a pedestrian access only. And I'm not sure that, yeah, that's the pedestrian system that they have that runs along the perimeter strictly for pedestrians and for people to enjoy walking through the development. So does lot 13 not have access to Tates Creek? No it does not. Here's lot 13 back here. And Tates Creek's out here in the front Mr. Gold. Okay thank you. Thank you, Tom. Applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased to be representing the applicant today. Harriet Allen is with me, I think, in the third row. She's the owner of property in Tallinn Winery, and Troy Thompson, a development advisor, is next to her. And, of course, Rory Cayley, our designer, is on the other side of the aisle. And this is an abbreviated hearing, so as to the zoning, I'll just say we do agree with what the staff has presented to you. This does agree with the rural land management plan, which is an element of the comprehensive plan. On the development plan issues, as Mr. Martin mentioned, I'll deal with the cul-de-sac issue first, the frontage along the cul-de-sac there. That was pointed out to us, and we will have the opportunity to bring that back up to you. I want to emphasize, this is a preliminary subdivision plan and preliminary development plan combined. both have the word preliminary in front of them so before we can sell any lots we're going to be coming back to you with a final subdivision plat so we can sell sell lots so you'll be seeing that again and we will determine how we will request that be dealt with at that time so we're we understand that we're comfortable with that a couple questions I know mr. Penn you had the question about maintenance of the access easement. And I have run into that too over the years here in Fayette County. And the way it usually comes up, there's a number of subdivisions, and some of these are commercial subdivisions in Fayette County, where in the 60s or the 70s, they would develop three or four commercial lots off of an access easement. And all they would do, they'd say on the plat, they'd label flat access easement. They would have no notes about it. They would have no deed restrictions whatsoever. So 30 years later, when the pavement is deteriorating, nobody knows who's supposed to pay for it or what. That's not the case here. First of all, we have notes. This is in very small print on my copy. I've got my development plan, But note 11, which Rory has placed on our plan here, states vehicular access easements serving lot 17 across lot 16 and serving lot 13 across lot 11 shall be maintained by the lots they provide access to, lots 17 and 13 respectively. So these easements are maintained entirely by the owners of the lot they are serving. There's no responsibility placed on the other lot. And then it says, no other lot shall be permitted vehicular access from these easements. So we do have a note on the plat, but more importantly, we're going to do a set of deed restrictions, which spell that out and make it clear, amplify what's stated in this note and in more detail about who is responsible for maintaining and what the access rights are. The problems arise when those restrictions haven't been filed. And we're going to make sure it's spelled out very clearly so everybody knows their responsibilities over who can use them and who maintains them. So with that, I think those are the issues I remember and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Yes, any questions for the applicant? Not seeing it. We don't have anyone out there that's going to speak against it, so I'm bringing it back to the commission. Floor is open for further questions, discussions, but we do have three actions that we must take for this application. Mr. Penn? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MAR 219. The zone change as recommended by staff. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Worth. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Get me out of here. There you go. Yeah, thank you. Okay, motion passes unanimously. You want the development plan? Yes. The preliminary. Mr. Chairman, I move for PLNMJDP 2166, the preliminary development plan. With the 19 conditions. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Penn. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Boxdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Now we need a motion for the waiver. Chairman, I move for the approval of the findings for the waiver petition for PLNMJDP 2166, towel on the stage. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Bell. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So, staff? Yes. For clarification, that includes both the waiver and the finding on the access easement, doesn't it? Yes. He's asking, does that include the waiver and the findings? Yes. Yes. We will see it back as preliminary. You'll hear the cul-de-sac issue next, but we asked for a waiver to allow us to use the access easements up to those two lots, which is separate on there, but I think your motion included both. I thought the motion did. It included both. Thank you. I thought you did too. Okay. All right. Thank you. So page 7. Yes, sir. PLN MAR-21. Yes, sir. Urban County Council. 1490 Bull Lee Road. Zone change. Application. Thank you very much, sir. We are moving to this next application. And, sir, I do believe, unless there is a request for greater time from the commission, that there is no one here in opposition to this application. And I believe that this can be heard as an abbreviated hearing as well if the commission does not have greater questions about this application. All right. Thank you very much. This is PLN MAR21-00021. The applicant, in this case, it is the Urban County Council, is seeking to rezone a total of 200 net and 242 gross acres from the AR, AU, and P2 to a restricted light industrial zone for the properties located at 2850 Georgetown Road and a portion of 1490 Bowley Road. The applicant is seeking to place this into the industrial and production center place type and the industrial and production non-residential development type. This is part of a greater project to provide a greater amount of industrial land owned and operated by the LFUCG, and it will be actually operated and developed by the Industrial Authority Board. And then as new companies or businesses come in, it will be parceled out from there. and sold fee simple. This is a focus on economic and industrial development within our community, and it has had a significant amount of conversation specifically within the comprehensive plan that was adopted previously. Just looking at the zoning of the area, again, we are located up against our urban service boundary here. You do see a host of different zoning in the area. We do have the P2 zoning, which is associated with the Coldstream Research Campus. The site itself for the majority of it, this AU portion and AR portion, is the location of the Dairy Farm Research Campus for the University of Kentucky. As you can see, there is a bit of light industrial that is neighboring this property, and then a fair amount of residential, some highway service business, and then getting into some professional office uses in the area. Jumping over to the aerial photography of the site, you get to see a little bit more of the land use that has developed over time. As you can see, again, we're getting into our residential development, some historical light industrial development located here, Some recently established highway service development that is currently vacant. And then residential development, the school located right here, and then into our industrial development located at this portion of the site. As you can see from this aerial, there are some areas of environmentally sensitive spots. We do have some floodplain that runs along this area and includes a bit of alluvial soils. while you do see a stream that cuts across here and here. Those are very small creeks that actually do not have any floodplain associated with them. However, within the master plan for this site, the applicant has focused on trying to provide some environmental buffers to protect these areas. Just getting a view into the site. This is standing off of Georgetown Road looking into the property. You can see the research campus right on top of the hill. Looking down Georgetown Road into town across the street. This isn't a fabulous picture, but you can see that there has been the multifamily development and some single-family development in this area. And then looking out Georgetown Road towards Scott County. With all zone changes associated with urban zoning, we do have to look at a place type development type. The applicant is, in this case, the Urban County Council, is looking at the industrial and production center place type, the industrial and production non-residential or mixed-use development type, and they are seeking to apply a restricted light industrial zone on this property. with all applications the comprehensive plan stresses a significant amount of neighborhood outreach and engagement and in this project there has been a significant and meaningful engagement that has has occurred on site working not only with professionals developers working with some of the industrial groups in our area but also with the neighbors in this area. This is a website that was set up for comments and concerns to be placed, as well as updates to the project as the project was being developed. This is leading to the construction of a master plan for the site. With most applications, the Planning Commission would review a development plan associated with that map amendment request. However, in this case, since this is the urban county government and there is a developing master plan associated with this site, there is no specific development plan. However, with this light industrial zone, the staff is recommending the use of conditional zoning restrictions as applied for by the applicant, in this case the urban county council, which would include that all development sites within the legacy business center, which is what this area is being called. We're shifting away from the turkey neck, which is what many people have referred to this as in the past, to the legacy business center, and they shall all be governed by a final development plan. This does two things. It makes sure that as people are coming in with new development on this site, it is complying with the master plan, but it also allows for the planning commission to have a review of those new sites that are coming in to maintain the connection between the master plan, the comprehensive plan, and new development that would occur within an industrial zone. So while you are not seeing a specific development plan associated with this application, you will see future development plans associated with this location. This is an illustrative document that is submitted with the master plan and highlights some of the major aspects of the development that is being proposed here. This includes the roadway that would connect into the property at two locations. This would be a signalized intersection across from Kearney Hall. And then another secondary access point located down here. This is across from the industrial development that has been in place for some time. The applicant, in this case the urban county government, is seeking to continue the legacy trail which runs along the northern portion of the site before cutting under 6475 and continuing on towards the horse park, but also making those connections across the site and providing access into the neighborhood located to the south. On here you can see that there are some early ideas of how this site might be subdivided into different lots. This is very preliminary. These will be adjusted as new development is proposed at this location and would be worked with between the IAB and the urban county government. You can see that they are providing a significant amount of buffer along those two small creeks that I had indicated before. This is really meant to preserve a lot of those potentially environmentally sensitive areas, while also dealing with quite a bit of the potential rainwater stormwater runoff that might be impacting the site, including the amount of impervious service that might be placed across this site. As I said, and when we looked at this previously, the print was much smaller. I don't believe I got it that much larger. but there are a significant amount of conditional zoning restrictions that were applied with for this site. These include a fair amount of restrictions for the wholesale and warehousing business zone, or the B4 zone, and the light industrial zone. These restrictions were put into, recommended by the applicant and are recommended by staff, largely because of the impact that this development might have on two separate factors. The first being the economic and jobs producing factor. We want to eliminate those types of uses that are low income producing and that do not employ many jobs. This is meant to increase the economic and industrial activity in our community. And many of the uses that are called out in this list do not allow for that growth. The other aspect is the location of this site within the Royal Springs Aquifer. This is in an environmentally sensitive area within our community and serves as the aquifer and water source for Scott County. There is a joint commission that is the Royal Springs Aquifer Wellhead Protection Committee. I kind of got that right. But it is meant to look at these types of developments, making sure that we're protecting the Royal Springs aquifer to the best of our ability. You will see many of the restrictions that we place on industrial development that has come in front of you over the past few years and some on this. I don't want to list these out for you today, but you'll see them in the staff report in front of you, as well as within our recommendations. Due to the applicant's review and engagement with our community, as well as the kind of developed master plan that has been presented, There are several elements of the comprehensive plan that the applicant is in agreement with, as well as the development criteria based off of the illustrative documents that have been provided to staff in the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval of this restricted light industrial zone as it is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan. Much of the staff's rationale for the recommendation of approval is based off of the ability for the jobs production at this location. However, staff is also seeing this as a way to intensify the utilization of our land within our urban service area. The fact that they are protecting a significant portion of our environmentally sensitive places within this application. and the fact that the applicant is seeking to do this in a well-defined and designed type of development. In addition to those goals and objectives that the applicant is meeting on this, they are in agreement with the development criteria associated with the place builder element for an industrial and production center place type and in a production and development type. As we stated before, there are some prohibited uses that are being recommended, 35 of them for this site, and the condition that all development sites within the Legacy Business Center shall be governed by future final development plans. Again, bringing this back to this commission so that you might have your review of those development plans. These are important not only to protect the appearance of Georgetown Road, which is a gateway into our community, but also to protect the Royal Springs Aquifer from any potential nuisance uses or pollutive uses. With that, that was a quick run-through on this. If the Planning Commission has any questions about the zone change, I'm happy to answer them. We also have a member of the urban county government here who has worked on this quite a bit, Mr. Craig Benz, who can answer any specific questions about the master plan that has been developed or any of the previous research that has been done on this site. I don't know whether this is a question for you or for Craig. I'll just direct it to both of you. When we look at this, and I see the restrictions on there, and I understand the need for them, unlike CoalStream, these lots will be sold. Is that correct? Yes, sir. They'll be sold by the Urban County Government? Yes, guided by the Industrial Authority Board. Right. Now, as we demonstrated in the stockyard project, where all the water was retained on site and recycled back for the use in the stockyard, we have proven that we can do those types of things. And my question to Craig, I guess, is would that same type, because it is in the wellhead protection area, with that same type of impervious surface roof runoff, that will that water be contained and redone, or how will that be handled? I can hand this off to Mr. Benz, but I will say that you will have the opportunity to bring up concerns, as with all development plans that are brought in. If you have a concern about water runoff or any type of the design of a project in terms of a health, safety, and welfare aspect, and the aquifer is a health, safety, and welfare aspect to our community and Scott County, then you would be able to make recommendations for the development of that site. But I'll ask Mr. Benz to come on up. Good afternoon. That's certainly something we'd be willing to discuss as this site moves down the line towards development planning. We have not gotten that far in the discussions conceptually yet to know whether or not that would be feasible, but it's certainly something we'd be willing to discuss. I realize it all depends on use. You know, who's going to use it, what it's going to be used for. What I was looking for in this document is the fact that we can do this type of things with the restrictions that we have on this kind of land. This isn't going to keep us from having an industrial park here. That can be managed, and that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to establish the fact that this can be used for the light industrial, and because we have the tools, the technology, and the know-how, how to manage that. And I just want to get that on the record. Yes, sir. The restrictions that are proposed are truly to create high-quality, higher-paying jobs and to create the most jobs we can across the site. Many of the uses that are restricted on there create relatively few jobs across the site. So that was one of the reasons we are proposing those limitations. Thank you. And Mr. Penn, if I may add, these properties are, of course, are subject to our stormwater manuals and those requirements and review by the Royal Springs Committee as well for their recommendations that would be incorporated into any stormwater plans for the site. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Can you bring back up that site plan? Yes, sir. With the, yeah, that one. I also, I guess, want to get this on the record because I feel like if this site plan was being brought by a private developer, I would have the same question, which is we're proposing in the long term, hopefully, a pretty intensive use of this site with a high number of employees. And we have one vehicular entrance and exit onto the site. A lot of the proposed uses also have synergy with uses or businesses in Coldstream, which is right next door. But to get to Coldstream, you'd have to go out to Georgetown, down to Citation, across Citation, and then up into Coldstream. Can you go over the thinking on that and what went into this single entrance and exit vehicular plan? Sure. As we went through the master planning process, we really wanted to focus on that part of the property that we know for sure we're going to be controlling. The property is going to transfer in July of next year. There's also an opportunity in the future, and this is something I think as we go through the development planning process, there will definitely be more discussion with adjacent property owners and with UK and the other stakeholders about putting a secondary access over on that far eastern side of the property. We're not sure exactly what that looks like yet. We've had some preliminary discussions just to explore that possibility, but that's something we'll be looking at in more depth as we move forward. And then I guess it was mentioned at the last, there might be an easement that is expiring in a certain number of years to the south. was that to the property there to the to the right next to the residential development there so located right here yeah there is a 10-foot easement located along this area that was initially discussed as a possibility I believe that that will have to continue to be reviewed I know that there is also future development plans for this section here by the University of Kentucky, which would also need a roadway. So the hope is as this moves forward, there's a ability at some point to make further connections with either properties to the south or making some sort of connection over. Those were my questions regarding the vehicular traffic. I did have one question regarding the restrictions. This seems like a long sort of scattershot list that pulls out certain businesses. But then overall, the sale and the final development plan will be guided by the industrial board. And so is there a need to put such a long list of restrictions if we are, is that not redundant? So I believe that the issue is that once it is sold, be simple. We would like any new users that might come in to continue the more intensive use of the land. If the applicant or the IAB were to go ahead and sell this to one group and then another group come in without these conditional zoning restrictions, they would be able to do something along the lines of the wholesale warehousing self-storage type uses, which are not high employment factors. This allows for a bit of more longevity to the control of these uses for the second or third users down the line. It is also many of these were negotiated with the neighborhood. While some of them were discussed between staff, the planning staff and governmental staff as to what might be the best or least type uses for industrial uses for jobs and employment. Some of these were described by the neighborhoods as not being things that they would like or be appropriate neighboring them. And many of those include freight yards, some of the tire retreading, a little bit more of the recycling side of things because they are generally higher nuisance producers. And I guess one genre of these conditions that I was would ask about would be the development of this could be a long-term process. Some of the restrictions, such as market gardens, are often things that go in lots that then get replaced by development at a later time. Other uses would fall, not the same use, but like temporary uses like carnivals or circuses that wouldn't necessarily replace a long-term use. and i i believe that the focus on that was to to keep it uh towards more industrial jobs producing rather than the short term um i and if you would like to talk about that just a little bit more what would be the short term use of the land while we wait for businesses to come fine. Our hope is that the very short-term use will continue to the property will look a lot like what it looks like until it transfers of course. And then there's going to be quite a bit of cut and fill and infrastructure installation to make this site development ready. But the hope is that we're going to be delineating and selling lots on a fee simple basis to the end users. that there wouldn't be a transitional use between now and then, that the final users would be purchasing lots on a lot-by-lot basis and actually developing for the final use. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any more questions for the applicant? Not seeing any. Thank you, Hal. We can bring this back to the commission for further questions or the floor is open for a motion. I move for approval of PLN MAR 2121 Urban County Council as stated. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Mr. DeMovulian. Any further discussions to that motion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Yeah, I think that'll put us on. Any commission items? There we go. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. We need to go into closed session if you have a motion for that, please. Okay. Here you go. Mr. Pint. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61-8101C for the purpose of discussing pending legislation. Thank you Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Demovlin. We are now in closed session. We have a motion to go back into open session. Do you have a second? Second. Second. All right, we got three seconds. Which one? Mr. Davis was the first one. Yep. Okay. Are we back on? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. We got it on Granicus. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, and Keith, thank you for coming over and sharing that update with you. That came to us yesterday, and we just wanted to make sure you had the information. This is our last meeting with you for this month and for this year, and we'll see you again at your committee meetings on Thursday, January the 6th, same assignment. So we'll look forward to seeing you there, same format. And we do express our gratitude for all the work you're doing. Here you are, every one of you here, at this late date in December. So we appreciate the work you've done for us this year. To give you a preview, the comprehensive plan will be foremost on our minds next year, and we'll start talking about that with you next month. So stock up while you're on break this next two weeks. And the staff wishes you all a very happy holiday, and we're available if you need anything during the holidays. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I think I said it earlier. I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And the staff as well, thank you for all you've done for 2021. It's been another difficult year, another adaptation to the new world that we live in. We look forward to seeing you in 2022. With that being said, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.