Pretty Mama Come and Take Me By The Hand I like to hear some punk at Dixieland. Pretty mama, come and take me by the hand. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Pretty mama, come and take me by the hand. Come on, baby. I like to hear some punk at Dixieland. Pretty mama, come and take me by the hand. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Pretty mama, come and take me by the hand. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Come on, baby. Thank you. Good afternoon. Today is July 25th. Can everybody hear me? I know it says it. Hello? Is my mic that good? Good afternoon. It is July 25th, and this is the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government's zoning hearing. First on the agenda is the approval of the June 13th minutes. Is yours working, Bill? Testing, testing, testing. Can you hear me? There it is. Okay. I don't know what that's all about. All right. Our first item on the agenda is the approval of the June 13th minutes. Do we have a motion or any discussion? Mr. Chair, can you hear me? There we go. I move for approval of the June 13th, 2024 minutes. as submitted by staff. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Is there a second? Thank you, Ms. Barksdale. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. And that carries unanimously. Item number three, postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chair, we have a request on page five of your agenda. This is relating to hearings on zoning ordinance text amendments. The applicant for ZODA 2403, Regulation of Solar Energy Systems, is requesting a one-month postponement to the August 22nd hearing. Planning staff is in the process of generating some language, and so we should be able to move that forward at that time. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have a motion for that postponement? Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, I move for postpone a PLN Zota 24-3 regulation of solar energy systems until August the 22nd. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Is there a second? Thank you, Mr. Pol. Any discussion? I don't know what it's doing. Seeing none, we will take a vote. Good. Okay, Ms. Worthy is voting in the affirmative, but it's not. There it goes. Okay. All right. That carries. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals from staff or from the public? Yes. I'm sorry? If you have a postponement or withdrawal, please come to the podium and just state your name and which application or item. My name's Steve Justice. We're requesting, I live at 2421 Eastway Drive. It's in, for plan 0012, the Pasadena Drive. I don't know if I'm at the appropriate time to speak or not. This is if you're an applicant or you have a... I'm not the applicant. Okay. Do you represent Classic Traditions, Inc.? No, I do not. Okay. If you have public comment, it would come during the actual hearing in a little bit. I can't hear you. If you had any public comment, it would come during the hearing when that item is... Yes, sir. Sure. Mr. Carter? i believe he was asking for postponement but i will say we do not want to postpone this hearing okay all right thank you mr carter are there any other postponements or requests seeing none we will go to i believe what's the next item on the agenda which is 94 97 c lucy crosby property Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item on your agenda is a plat revocation request. These are relatively rare. This is the third one that I can remember in my career here. We've done it twice before in my career. I believe Mr. Owens and Mr. Wilson were on the commission when one of these requests came through several years ago. So we're out off of Dry Branch Road, which is off of Jack's Creek Road. This is our GIS map, which is taken from a lot of this from PBA deed information to create these. We're looking at these tracks right in here. There's a third track right here that fronts on Dry Branch Road. The applicant is requesting a revocation of a consolidation plat that was done in 94. And that consolidated, oops, I'm doing it, I don't have to do that anymore, that's a hard habit to break. But it consolidated these two tracks, which would have left the owners with this track and this as a consolidated single track. There were no deeds prepared from this consolidation plat. So the PVA map does not reflect this plat because no deeds were done, no deeds were prepared. A lot of people don't understand the plat's the first step when you configure property. You have to do a deed off a plat for it to be officially configured and then transferable. The other two plats that were revoked were also consolidation plats. They were also out in the agricultural area as well. So KRS 100.285 grants you the authority to revoke a plat. It requires that the applicant file an affidavit stating that no property was transferred. No one purchased one of these lots based on this particular plat. They have supplied that affidavit. If you look on Granicus, you have a very large packet, and it has their request for revocation. It's got deeds. It's got the plat. It's got the parent plat where the first three lots were originally created back in the day, as well as the copies of the affidavit that they filed. So again, this is relatively rare, but they have met the requirements under KRS 285 that would allow you to grant the revocation of this plat if you have any questions for staff be happy to answer them thank you thank you mr martin do we have any questions for mr martin mr owens thank you tom um what what are the acreage of these three pieces oh that's uh let me check the plat So on the consolidation tract, it would be one is 50 and one is 25. Again, this is 50, that's 25. Okay, so the consolidation was to put those two together? Those two together, yes, sir. 50? It would have been, yes, sir. And then just for clarification, what's in this packet here, there's a lot of pages that's shown and they're showing deed books. Yes. Page numbers and so forth. Yes, sir. Those are the individual tracks? Yes, sir. And not a consolidation? That is correct. No, that is, that's the key to this. No deed was ever done off that consolidation plat and no property was ever transferred. Okay. Thank you for now. Thanks. Was any construction of housing units or building permits issued based on these tracks? Not that I'm aware of, no. All right. Ms. Ward? Yeah, we're having microphone issues, several of us are this morning or this afternoon. Am I on now? Okay. Okay. Just for understanding the legalities of this, we're going back to a farm that's a 25-acre and a 50-acre, but because of the legalities, we're not creating a 25-acre farm in the rural area. Is that right? As a matter of fact, Ms. Worth, it never was created. That plant, no deed was prepared from that plant. So actually, that's why PVA still shows three tracks. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicants. Does the applicant have a representative here today? I understand. Is Mr. Edwards around or? Okay. Thank you. the mayor here okay okay and we do have i mean a letter from the applicants representative in the in our packet since there is no one representing the applicant would any member of the public like to speak on this particular application at this time seeing none do we have any commissioner discussion or questions all right seeing none the floor is open for a motion mr chairman yes sir mr owens one other question tom um the agenda on the agenda it says that the plat was recorded in 1997. okay um the same owner all along i believe so yes yes uh-huh it's the family and they want to sell the property and the buyers want three tracks and not two. Since there are legally three tracks, that's why they requested the revocation. Let me ask you this, and do we have a reason as to why they asked for consolidation? No. Other than back in the day in 97, and I've been around a while, but I wasn't here then. Okay. Okay. People can do what they want with their property within the law and the rules. So that's- Okay, thank you. All right, if there is no other discussion, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Paul? I move to approve a plat revocation for Platt, Cabinet K, slide 259-94-97C, Lucy Crosby property. Thank you, Mr. Polk. Do we have a second? Second from, thank you, Commissioner Barksdale. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. That carries. Thank you. Our next item on the agenda is on page 2, the Curt R. Volk Exempt Family Share Trust Zoning Map Amendment and Volk Estates Development Plan. Daniel, thank you. All right. Good afternoon everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. This request this afternoon is a request by the Kurt Auer-Volk exempt family shared trust. Pursuant to some of the conversations that were had at the committee level with this item, planning staff has invited several folks here from the Rural Land Management Board to speak to some questions that arose regarding the Rural Land Management Plan. And so later on, staff will cover our presentation, but they are also available as far as context for any of the development that kind of occurs in the rural areas. But this is to rezone the property located at 8200. Oh, sorry. Looks like we got back. This is to rezone the property at 8200 Tates Creek Road from its current AR zoning to agricultural buffer, AB zoning. The applicant is seeking this in order to subdivide the parcel into smaller lots that are currently allowed under the AR zone. So just to orient ourselves, the subject property here is located on Tates Creek Road. Directly west of the subject property across Tates Creek Road is Jessamine County. The whole impetus behind the AB zone and its treatment within the Rural Land Management Plan is its adjacency to areas that could potentially be more intense. So part of the conversation as we go along is going to be this property's relationship to Tates Creek Road. But this is located essentially near the intersection of Tates Creek Road with Spears Road that intersect near the subject property. Zoning-wise, the subject property is zoned AR, as is the other properties around it with this light green color. There is a small portion of existing commercial zoning that predates our existing zoning ordinance that operates kind of at the intersection of Spears and Tates Creek Road. You'll notice that while these properties in the immediate vicinity have AR zoning, they are all smaller than the 40-acre minimum required by the zoning ordinance today. So these are an area of existing lots and development that kind of create a mismatch to the current standards. Here we have a view of the subject property itself. It's largely wooded. There are a couple agricultural structures, one located kind of near the stub at the end of Spears Road, as well as some development that historically was located closer to the clear portion of the property. But at this time, it is currently one parcel. The applicant is seeking the ability to divide this up into smaller tracks. To do so, they need this zone change. Here's an idea of what the subject property looks like and its surrounding context. So here, much of the property is sort of defined by this existing vegetation, existing growth. To the left side of the screen here, we have Jessamine County with Tates Creek Road serving as the divider. At the committee level, there were several comments relating to the treatment of Tates Creek Road, the conditions in the area, especially at areas like this. There are several narrow bridges that sort of cross over existing water features and streamlines flood areas that are impact sort of access to the property. So part of the discussion on the site is how, if approved, how access to the site will function. So the subdivision plan associated with this, we'll speak to that in a little bit more detail. Very similar, this is Spears Road. So to the subject property being located to the right this time. but very similar features. We're talking a two-lane roadway that sometimes narrows at certain crossings with those bridges over those features, but otherwise a kind of rural development really hasn't been utilized for some time. Here is the applicant's proposal provided in color-up form. We have the segmentation of this property into a number of smaller lots. These range from approximately 10 acres to the largest being this stub here, which is, I believe, just a bit under 20. Once again, as this is considered, access is important to consider with this development, as is the way that this fits in within the rural land management plan. But as it stands, these would divide the property from one parcel into several. When we're talking about rural developments, the comprehensive plan lays out sort of a guideline. The rural land management plan is sort of the prime document that really looks at this. So this is recommended within the comp plan. It says that the rural land management plan is that guiding document. There are policies that sort of support and are derived from the rural land management plan that was adopted in 1999 and then updated in 2017, incorporated into the comprehensive plan. But there's policies speaking to kind of the development that we look for in this particular context because it is outside the urban services area. These policies really speak to kind of a variety of different goals, but some of the more significant ones is the stewardship policy that specifically calls for sort of the rural land management plan in its 2017 edition to kind of follow those policies. So what does the rural land management plan say for this area? It's a map-based plan. So unlike Place Builder, they're not making an argument for place type or development type. This was a map-based plan. So here we have the subject property outlined in this bluish color here. There are two parcels that sort of interrupt the property. Those are not included in this request. But once again, land use recommendation. So the buffer land use, which corresponds to the AB zone, is this lighter color here. The majority of the parcel, with the exception of this portion here, is recommended for buffer land uses. There is a portion of the property that is recommended as core agricultural land. With that, think your sort of typical AR development, larger lot size, really oriented towards productive farming and agricultural operations. The exact sort of design of the buffer that runs along Tates Creek Road in this vicinity is basically based on a proximity from the roadway. So the fact that this portion of the property kind of extends past the near vicinity, it's about 2,000 feet as you go kind of further up Tates Creek Road. But essentially there are two recommendations based on this parcel, one that supports the AB zone and the other that normally would require AR zoning but is not large enough to actually facilitate an AR piece. That's a little bit more than, I believe, 15 or 16 acres that is recommended for core agricultural land, not sufficient to meet the full 40. When we're talking about buffer areas, these are really areas, and the folks with the Rural Land Management Board can provide some further context of how we've got here, but how this is managed currently has a minimum lot size of 10 acres with an AB zone. These were designed to sort of act as a buffer. So within these areas, there were existing conditions, in this case, Jessamine County being located on the opposite side of Tates Creek Road, that spoke to the need to provide a transition, transition from more lenient zoning that could allow potentially incompatible development, that would then buffer and then transition into our larger agricultural areas, our larger tracts, our more productive for agricultural purposes. So this is one particular location here. The subject property is shown in red at the bottom of the screen. So you'll notice that the existing lotting pattern, many of the parcels located within this buffer area already have lot sizes that are less than that 40 acres. And really that sort of existing built environment sort of dictated the desire to have those kind of 10-acre lots act as that transition. When we're talking about policy emphasis, once again, they're looking at a 10-acre minimum parcel size, really limiting this to residential and agricultural uses, and just making sure that those relationships stay fit. This is a map of the entirety of Fayette County with the kind of extent of the agricultural buffer areas or where it's recommended in the plan shown in yellow. So it is a very minuscule part of the overall of Fayette County. So this 10-acre requirement or those 10-acre minimums really are only applicable and pertinent in those yellow areas. The rest are either natural areas within the urban service boundary or are those prime agricultural uses where normal AR zoning is sort of appropriate. And to kind of hammer on the point of the context of the area, when staff was looking at the appropriateness of the portion that did not include that buffer land use, we looked at sort of the existing parcels in the area. So once again, we have the subject property shown in yellow. This red, the parcels highlighted in red, are parcels that do not meet the 40-acre lot size. So this entire area, both up and down Spears Road, Tates Creek Road in the vicinity, are already characterized essentially by the type of development that the applicant is proposing here. And in specific, the bottom left calls out kind of the existing element for those AB recommended areas. and we have an average parcel size of 16.4 acres. So that's the kind of context that staff was looking at when the rural land management plan recommended the AB zone for the vast majority of the property. We felt that doing so with that portion along Spears Road as well was in keeping with the context of that area, still noting the need to make sure that access management was still done in an appropriate way. Overall, staff is recommending approval of this request. We find that it upholds the urban services concept and is in keeping with the rural land management plan, specifically that land use element. It speaks to the character of the surrounding area, surrounding development that occurred prior to the adoption of the plan. And it will not create any type of hazard and is inconsistent with development along Spears Road. So for the reasons shown on your screen, staff is recommending approval of this request. As we stated earlier, we have some other folks here that can provide some context for how the plan kind of took the form that it did. But in staff's evaluation of the plan as it stands today, we are recommending approval. And I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time. All righty. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any questions for Daniel at this time? All right. Are there any commissioner questions for the representatives of the Rural Land Management Board at this time? Or do we want to have that later? I'm sorry, sir. Do you have any questions for the representatives of the Rural Land Management Board? Well, Ms. Galt has our... Okay. All right. Do you want to hear from them now or after? Mr. Martin, do you have a presentation as well? Ms. Galt does. Oh, okay. Do you want to hear that now or after? Sure. After you will do. Okay. Okay. We'll hear that and then we'll hear from the rural land folks. Good afternoon. We're looking at preliminary subdivision plan MJSUB 24-5. As Daniel pointed out, we have Takes Creek Road coming down this direction and Spears over here. We have a couple locations. One of our conditions on here was talking about stone walls, and they have located, there's a couple locations on the plan where there were stone wall locations, so they have noted that on the plan, on the application. That was one of our conditions that I was able to remove off their staff report here. As you can tell, they have a revised list of conditions. It's on the green paper. This is a preliminary subdivision. A preliminary subdivision comes before your final record plat to show you the big picture idea of how they want to subdivide and create the individual lots. With that, we have just our typical sign-offs. We had just a couple other discussion items. We had discussed the access, proposed access, lots, article 6-4-1, I-1 for site access as per the land subdivision regulations. This was discussed at the subdivision committee meeting. this was where we were talking about possibly having like an access easement to reduce the number of access points along either takes creek road or spur road just to reduce them so that it would say better or to reduce them for public safety reasons. They have added a note to the plan. Like I said this is a preliminary subdivision so they have added a note to the plan asking that this be just be resolved at time of final record plan because with this being a state road Kentucky Department of Transportation will not make any sign-offs or any agreements to locations and access points until we get to the next step. So they've added a note to resolve this at the time of the final record plan And as the other discussion question was the rural land management plan and the comprehensive policies. This does follow the comprehensive plan to use the agricultural buffer area. This is giving the agricultural buffer buffers between our farmland and the adjacent counties with their urban uses along Takes Creek Road. They do meet the minimum requirements per the zoning ordinance. as far as lot size and setbacks. So at this time, between those two, the land subdivision regulations is the process that they go through to subdivide into the individual lots, and that's what will be their next step. So if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Galt. Do we have any comments or questions for Cheryl? Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Cheryl, I'm sorry. When, as you mentioned, in subdivision, there was some discussion about access, and you referred to the possibility of an access easement? Well, we kind of talked about that, but we weren't sure. And I believe Traffic Engineering and the applicant and with the Kentucky Department of Transportation, they're all going to have to review that. And so at this time, they haven't come to a finalization because with the Kentucky Department of Transportation, they won't make those agreements. It's my understanding, Rory's probably better at this, but they don't define those until later. I'm just curious, if there's an access easement, would that mean that the lots would have to be reconfigured? No. No. No. Okay. You can create an access easement, which we can create it going across. We can go across several different lots at one time with an access easement. So if they find that there's a better point along Takes Creek Road for several lots in a row, say it's just not a good site distance, they could possibly create that access easement to help protect those lots as far as access on and off. Okay. And then also there was some discussion as far as environmental flood plain. That they have noted all that. Sorry. They've added that information to the top portion of the plan right here. There was a small little bit of flood plain that they hadn't noted on the plan. So they have made those notes and added the setbacks along this area here. So that's kind of where we were talking about those two lots up there, possibly creating an access easement for those folks, just because that way you're not having to cross a stream or floodplain area. But that's something, like I said, can be determined at the time of the final record plat. Okay. Anybody else? Just to better understand the context of this area, you talked about the forestation on some of the plots here. Across the road on Spears Road, that's a natural zone across the road? Across Spears I believe is all AR, agricultural rural. I think it isn't designated for natural. Am I wrong? I think it begins there. Yeah, can we pull up that map? Whoops. Keep going. Whoops. Hold on a second. There we go. You're right. There you go. Yeah. So it shows down here in the lower section. and then the remaining. All right. Do we have any other questions for Cheryl at this time? Mr. Polk. We don't have access to the map that you're using, at least I don't. And it appears to me from the map that we have access to that the roadway that we're seeing proposed running from Tate's Creek up toward the northeast is in the bottom of a drainage. That's the creek. That's the creek. It's a creek. So where's the access road? We don't have those access points. So you haven't drawn any access. We haven't done the access. What you're talking about is this area here? Yeah. That's a creek that runs through the property. Okay, and likewise the one down there. Okay, okay. I misunderstood what that was. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pol. Do we have... Very temperamental today. Do we have any other comments? Whoops, back feed. Anybody else? Nope. Okay. Okay. Now, do we want to hear from Ms. Martin at this time, or do you, just any context, any historic? I'm Gloria Martin, and I'm the current chair of the Rural Land Management Board. I want to, for the record, make it very clear from the get-go that at the request of the Planning Commission, we were asked to come give you all a history of how and why the AB zone was anticipated or thought about for that category. We are not here to discuss this zone change. We are here to give you general information and background and history. So I want to make that very clear. We are here just because of that request. Margaret Graves is here with me as well. Margaret was the person when we started doing this back in the 1990s, ended up chairing the implementation committee, which helped devise a lot of this. And she was the first chair for the Rural Land Management Board. Margaret and I have been meeting and have had meetings with other people who helped devise this since you all sent the request. That's part of the reason I think Frank Penn came is because this starting in the mid-1990s was a multi-year project is how this came about. For two years we met, 22 people met in what came to be known as the Bank One Committee across the street weekly almost for two years. It was attorney heavy. We had Bill Lear and Walter May, who was on the Planning Commission, Don Todd, who was chairing the Green Space Commission and had been a 12th District Council member. We had Jim Hodge, who had been Commissioner of Law here, Dee Dee Delaney, who was the Commissioner of Law at the time, Chris Westover, and I think Tracy ended up being at the end of some of those meetings as well. Those meetings had a lot of individuals involved that you all still know about. Some of the individuals were Don Robinson who ended up chairing the Planning Commission, Frank Penn and Mike have both been on the Rural Land Management Board and part of the Planning Commission. Jimmy Sropshire who was the President of the Farm Bureau, David Switzer who was head of the KTA. So it was a very broad-based group that worked for years. I'm just giving you the background because we asked for introduction. Margaret is going to give you the history and the specifics of how we got there. I will say I really want to thank you all for providing this opportunity. We have pointed out in the past that in the Code of Ordinances No. 26, it actually specifically ask that the rural land management board will work hand in hand with you all on situations and issues like this including the comp plan and any updates we do. So we are here at your request and having said that are there any questions before Margaret moves on to the bona fide history? Okay. Seeing none, thank you. Thank you Ms. Martin. Ms. Graves? Margaret? Thank you. First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. As Gloria mentioned, the Rural Land Management Board has always had an important role to play with respect to land use issues in the rural service area. And Chapter 26 contemplates that the Rural Land Management Board and the Planning Commission will often work together on issues related to the rural service area. That's actually also in your 2023 comp plan, Imagine Lexington 2045. But we are here at your request, and we're here to give you background information about how the AB zone came to be. and I'm not going to go through every last detail of every comp plan between when this was created and today, but I do want to hit the highlights, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have as we go along. So first of all, as early as 1958, this community has recognized the need to conserve rural land for agricultural use, starting with the Urban Service Foundry. Since that time, in every subsequent comprehensive plan, there has been recognition of the importance of the rural service area and the agricultural and equine economies and what they contribute to this community, both in terms of our economics but also in terms of our quality of life. I'm just going to quote some of the past comprehensive plans that talk about the importance of the rural area. Starting as early as 1985-1986, the Comp Plan, the Planning Commission prioritized protecting open space, scenic vistas, environmentally sensitive areas, soils, natural resources, prime agricultural land, and horse farms, and also recognized the need to buffer rural land and more intense urban development. The 1988 Comprehensive Plan identified specific environmentally sensitive areas, including Cane Break, DeLong Road, and the Kentucky River Tributaries. As a result of the 1988 Com Plan, the Green Space Commission was established in 1990. The Green Space Plan was adopted in 1994. The green space plan identified unique areas within the rural service area worthy of conservation and was instrumental in the creation of the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan. On August 27, 1998, Council enacted a one-year moratorium on the subdivision of land in the AR Zone due to the increasing number of 10-acre tracks that were being created at the time. And Chris King, who was then the director of planning, noted that from 1990 to 1998, 4,740 acres within the rural service area were converted into 10 to 15 acre tracts, but only provided opportunities for 429 housing units. This broad-based group that Gloria referenced was instrumental in getting that moratorium passed. there was recognition both from the ag community and from the development community that 10-acre tracts were not a good use of agricultural land, not a good use of the incredible soils that we have in Fayette County. So that brought the various groups who often are at odds together in agreement that that was not a good way to use our rural land. On April 8, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. On July 8, 1999, the Council adopted Ordinance 207-99 that increased the minimum lot size in the Rural Service Area from 10 acres to 40 acres. And in conjunction with that and the goals of the Comp Plan, the Council also adopted ordinance 208-99 that established the new agricultural buffer zone. The intent of the AB zone, as outlined in the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan, was to create a land use zone that would have limited applicability in very specific areas. It was designed to serve as a buffer area between urban areas and agricultural land. The Rural Land Management plan included maps with property lines for the proposed location of AB properties and proposed that only a total of 2,706 acres be designated as part of this new AB buffer area. The rural land management plan clearly stated that the intent was not to expand any such areas. The 2001 Comprehensive Plan incorporated the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan before it had been considered an amendment to the prior Comp Plan. And that 2001 Comp Plan adopted the buffer areas as described in the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan reiterated the goal of maintaining and enhancing the agricultural economy, horse farms, general agricultural farms, and the rural character of the rural service area. The 2007 Adopted Objectives also talked about the importance of maintaining rural roads with minimal improvements and managing rural growth opportunities to minimize negative impacts on rural roads. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan recognized buffer areas as one of five land use categories within the rural service area and again adopted the buffer areas as outlined in the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan. The 2017 Comprehensive Plan reflected on the 2016 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment which allowed certain ecotourism and agritourism uses within the new within the AB zone. The 2017 updated rural land management plan reiterated that the agricultural buffer area, the AB zones, were located on or near the edge of the then urban service boundary or along Tates Creek Road and were intended as a transition zone between urban land uses and rural areas and as a buffer from potentially incompatible land uses in Jessamine County. The 2017 Rural Land Management Plan reduced the total acres within the potential A-B category to a total of 2,525 acres. In the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan, in Table 3.5 on page 55, the plan indicates that all parcels in the AB Zone were platted prior to 1999 except for nine parcels created in 2005 and 2006 along Tates Creek Road, and that there were a total of 12 potential parcels with sufficient road frontage for subdivision into 10-acre tracks, three within Cane Break and nine along Tate's Creek Road. Table 3.5 makes it clear that no new additional 10-acre tracks were intended beyond these two designated areas. The 2017 Rural Land Management Plan emphasizes that any proposed development or use must be rigorously reviewed to ensure it is compatible with any housing on the parcel, housing in the vicinity, or with surrounding agricultural activities. The 2017 Rural Land Management Plan included a map with the potential for limited subdivision within the buffer areas. And that map is available, it's map 8 and it's available on page 58. The 2045 comprehensive plan does not include or address the AB Zone except to acknowledge those agritourism and ecotourism uses that are permitted. It reconfirms the community's longstanding commitment to conserving rural land for agricultural use and also conserving environmentally sensitive and natural lands. The 2045 plan, as we're calling it, also includes the importance of protecting and continuing to implement the PDR program to safeguard Fayette County's rural lands. It includes two maps within the comprehensive plan that references the easements that have already been acquired by the PDR program and also references buffer areas with no property lines or distinct boundaries. And under the stewardship area, under theme E, the 2045 plan talks about the importance of joint collaboration between the Planning Commission and the Rural Land Management Board. If you look at your GIS information, there are only, it shows the properties that have been zoned AB since 1999, and they are very limited. There is the Talon property, there is the property at the Canebrake property of Sayre School and the Blacksmith Ridge property. So in summary, the intent of the AB zone from the beginning in 1999 was to create a land use category that was limited in scope and limited in the total number of acres. It was to create an appropriate transitional buffer zone between agricultural uses and urban uses. The buffer category was to be located only in specific locations outlined in the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan and the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan. It also included the creation of certain physical buffering requirements on properties that were located in the AB zone that abut land that is agricultural in AR. The intent was not to use the AB zone as a mean to expand areas within the rural service area where additional 10-acre parcels could be created. It was not to allow improvements that would have a negative impact on entire agricultural areas and existing agricultural uses and roads. And it was to require rigorous review of proposed development to avoid incompatibility between housing and rural activities, rural farming. So that is a summary of the history of the AB zone and what its intent was from the people who were very involved in creating that zone. And if you would like to see the maps, we can put them on the overhead. Thank you, Ms. Graves. Do we have any questions for Margaret or Gloria? Do you want to see the GIS maps of those? Yes, we would. Yes. Thank you. Margaret talked about the moratorium and I want to mention that while she's putting something up. The moratorium had a sunset clause, which is, Margaret deserves a real pat on the back because she chaired that implementation committee. And the sunset clause said that if the PDR program and the rural land management plan were not devised by a certain date, then everything was to be erased. The council adopted all those things that she just mentioned, And the planning commission adopted all those things and it was all done in time. So it was really a big effort on the part of the planning staff, on the part of Charlie Seaman who was the consultant that had been hired to help do this, and certainly on the people in Margaret's committee. The GIS prepared this for us. There are only, as Margaret pointed out, there are only three AB zone changes that have ever been granted in the suggested AB area. This was the first one. I think, to be accurate, you probably know it's 2005 and 2006, and it's called the Blacksmith Ridge. The next one that was done is, this is Cane Break. and that is all of the acreage. We use these maps for our PDR and for talking to people about putting easements on their property. So we have the acreage written on all of these. That 50-acre track you probably recognize as the Sayre School, a zone change for AB. So because if they had an AB zone change, they could do this athletic facility there. So that was the second one that was done. And, thank you, she has the third one. This was the Talon development that you all did in 2022, 2023. And you can see that the first part of that, they did have Talon Way. And then all of the back part of those properties were left in 40 acre tracks that back up to the agricultural zones. All of these, both of the two on Taste Creek Road did have adequate tape-screep frontage. And the third one is a more detailed map of Map 8 that Margaret mentioned. This is on page 58 in the updated 2017 Rural Land Management Plan. You see down on the left-hand side, that's the cane break buffer area, and the only zone change that's been there is the 50 acres for the athletic facility. And as noted, Margaret noted, the only two that are left that are within the blue lines that could be divided is the 21.05 acre one and the 42. And on the other side, it's Tates Creek Road. There have been no zone changes or requests in the other buffer areas, which is Hume Road and Long Road. On Taste Creek Road, you see, and the reason, part of the reason, and Margaret didn't go into any detail, when we were meeting in the Bank One Committee with all of the property owners, developers on the committee, their lawyers, they wanted to know how they were going to handle the 10-acre lots that were already in existence. And so they drew the maps, and there are also maps like this for Hume and DeLong, but I didn't show those because we've not had any requests to change them. But you can see in yellow, which is what is considered the buffer, and you can see outside of that area. The color is not very good, but the different parcels that Margaret talked about, there were only so many. They're the ones that are outlined in the blue. Part of those, some of those are of the 10 acres, for instance, in the bottom right hand corner. That was divided in 1992 and it's part of a trust. It looks like there are a whole lot of 10-acre lots there, but actually Mr. Naylor farmed that for many years and it's still in the family and it's still one owner and they have not sold any of those lots. And I have, on working with the PDR, we have marked on each one of those, you can see there's a 250-acre track there, there's a 683-acre track, and you can see on up that Judmont enters into this picture. They go all the way through from Tate's Creek Road to Old Richmond Road. They have a little over a thousand acres through there. So up at the top, if you can slide it down just a little bit, that's the, so you'll see where the urban service area is and part of those, that 134 that's in yellow that's next to the urban service boundary actually is owned by Brookmont. So I'm not, yeah, Overbrook. So those are the only changes that have been made. And this sort of gives you a picture of where the roads are. It shows you Crawley Lane. Some of those along Crawley Lane were done in the 1980s. shows you Kidville, Shelby Lane, and at the top you can see some of those PDRs up on the top right-hand corner. Some of those go through all the way through to Walnut Hill and Old Richmond Road for PDR. Hopefully that gives you a little bit of explanation. And the last map that we have is the current one that GIS just did for us June 24th. This shows you all of the currently conserved properties, both with the Bluegrass Conservancy, which Margaret is currently chairing and our PDR program. So it is scattered all across the county. We now have over 31,000 acres and we're getting ready to close on three more tomorrow. And that sort of gives you a relationship idea for where it is. Again, please let me say that we did not come, We're not associated with this zone change. We came at your request just to give you the intent and the history. For what Margaret and I've said, I've made just, if you would like, Margaret, it's in there. We can hand you all a copy with the maps. Yeah, and we didn't do any extras, we did one for each of us and one for the planning staff to keep. So it's, we were just doing this because you all asked us to. Thank you, Chair Martin. Are there any questions for Mrs. Martin at this time or Ms. Graves? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you all very much. If that concludes that, Mr. Nicholson. Any questions? Or Jeff Keelan. That's on mine. We have a bevy of pens and not sure whose the ownership is right now. For the record, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant, the Kurt R. Volk Family Share Trust. Donna Horn is here with me. She is the owner of the property and Rory Kaley with EA Partners is also here. For the record, I'm submitting a copy of the presentation that I'm going to give. But you've heard a lot of what I was already planning to say, both from the Rural Land Management Board and the planning staff. We are in complete agreement with the recommendations of staff and the conditions of approval, but I did quickly want to kind of go over some of the kind of aerials and some of the maps that have been kind of discussed here already regarding the Rural Land Management Plan. This is an aerial of this site, as you all have seen. What is the, hold the middle one? Top one. There we go. As you've kind of seen, we have a very unusually shaped kind of parcel. Here are the two 10-acre tracks that kind of bifurcate the main body of the land, and then the slight little area right here, and then is adjacent to another 10-acre tract. tract. You can see how heavily wooded this entire area is and also the neighboring tract right here is just as heavily kind of wooded. There isn't any of the kind of defined term of agricultural use that is occurring here on site today in our zoning ordinance. The only actually agricultural use this property could be used for is timber and that is something that the property owner is in no interest to do whatsoever and I don't believe our community would want this type of area to kind of devolve into that type of agricultural use but because of how wooded it actually is that it would would be the only real agricultural use for this kind of property there are no crops on this there is no livestock and so that is kind of the situation the reason why we are here is merely for an estate planning tool. This is not a zone change for imminent development. This is not anything that we believe that is going to happen for many, many decades to come. This is in order to provide flexibility. The landowner does have a substantial farming operation just across the road in Jesmond County. And the concern here would be that with the kind of current tax code and so-called death tax being very much up in the air, the situation could arise that a very large tax bill could come requiring the sale of the larger farming operation. That isn't desired by this family. It is not desired by the property owner. This would give the flexibility that if that did occur, that some of, hopefully not all, but some of these parcels could be sold for some type of individual use on a kind of smaller basis to allow for the payment of the tax bill. Now we've kind of already gone over this, so I will not go nearly as kind of in depth as I was originally kind of planning on doing. But as you all know, the Rural Land Management Plan is still a map-based plan. Some of you all did serve on the Planning Commission prior to 2016. There's also some members here in the audience that served prior to 2016. Before that time, our comprehensive plan was entirely map based. As you see the specific recommendations for every single piece of property in the agricultural land, we had that same map for inside the urban surface boundaries. Every single parcel in Lexington had a specific recommendation for the type of land use. And if it was residential, there was even a specific recommendation for the density that would be allowed on that. As people who have sat through zone changes at that time would tell you that oftentimes compliance with the comprehensive plan began and ended with does it meet the map. It takes the kind of policy situations out of a lot of the arguments because the map was developed with those policies in mind. The rural land management plan does just that. It looks at the policies that are established in the rural land management plan and it looks at the various different areas around the ag area and make specific recommendations for those parcels. I thought it was very indicative that the 2017 plan actually decreased the amount of acreage that was recommended for the agricultural buffer zone. However, this property did in fact remain recommended as agricultural buffer. I also think it is very interesting that it is the only parcel on Spears Road that is actually recommended for agricultural buffer, but it would be the only parcel along Spear's Road that is not actually already subdivided into a smaller 10-acre tract. Now, the plan doesn't just start or stop with a general zoning category. This is the map that you've already kind of just saw, but was also discussed with regards to there are specific recommendations for parcels along Tate's Creek Road that would be appropriate for just the type of subdivision we are here to discuss today, and this parcel is specifically highlighted to show that that is the recommendation of this plan. And it is not just the area that is recommended as AB. It is the entirety of that parcel, and that is an acknowledgement, I think, of what Mr. Crumb was pointing out, that if you just rezoned the recommended area of the AB. It would result in basically a non-conforming tract of AR land. But in recognition of that basically non-conformity, we left that entire section as the much larger 20-acre tract in order to basically achieve the exact goal of only making the AB parcels the smaller parcels and trying to keep the parcel that was recommended or the part of the land that was recommended for AR are as the larger tract. Now, this is the map that you kind of also have already shown that kind of shows exactly what we are talking about. The entire area is basically, like not basically, it pretty much is, the 10-acre smaller tracts that the rural land management plan starts talking about. The exact kind of quote when talking about the buffer category is that the land use east of Tates Creek Road, which is this parcel. Opposite Jasmine County, some portions of the land along Tates Creek Road have been permitted to develop in mobile home parks and some business uses. This is exactly where the mobile home park is that's being referenced, and this is exactly where the business use that is being acknowledged. Much of Fayette County's side has been developed into 10-acre tracks, and given these considerations, the creation of a buffer area designation to transition from possible incompatible uses in Jesmond County into the Fayette County Core Agricultural and Natural Areas is appropriate. This is the exact parcel that that language is truly talking about. With regards to access, we are proposing basically the exact same note that was approved with Castleton Lions two weeks ago, except we are at a preliminary plan stage. That was the final plan stage. This is acknowledgment that these tracks that we are talking about are not actually being created with what you are approving today. That has to come back at a record plat stage. We put in this language that says an individual or shared access locations for the exact reasons that we talked about in the subdivision committee and kind of got referenced here today. We do not know what that final design will look like and Kentucky Transportation will not engage in the conversations to figure out what that will look like at this stage. It might be an access road, it might be shared driveways. The hope would be that an interested party, if these ever did get sold, would come in and want to buy three, four, five of these and only require one access point. Everything is still on the table. Nothing that is getting approved today would allow for a driveway. All of that is still basically up in discussion. So kind of in kind of closing, what I would say is the property is directly adjacent to several smaller tracks in Jasmine County and in Fayette County. We have the mobile home park. We are directly next to business uses as it is today. And the proposed uses are going to continue to be compatible with our neighbors as they are today. This is not going to change anything about how this land functions. This is not going to change anything about the long-term intent of how these property owners or how this property owner would like for this land to govern. I do want Ms. Horn to come up and kind of address any concerns that you all do have and make sure that you understand what the intentions are for this property. Come on up. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you, Gloria and Margaret. I've supported your goals from the very beginning. I am a farmer, but I am a therapist that allowed me to support being a farmer because it's almost impossible to be a farmer in today's time nor when we move there with our very young children. I have 294 acres in Jesmond County. It's farmed actively and then this piece of property. We bought this piece of property in the original plans that we were going to move our cattle farm there. And then as life hits, my husband got ill, the cattle market dropped in half, and a whole bunch of other things. The tractor broke down, who knows what else happened. But I am the farmer and therapist, mostly the farmer that you all want to have as a property owner. And I think looking at this, and I know this is not your role today, but looking at this piece of property, I also have to think about how it connects with Jessamine County, because that's where my other farm, the major part of our farming, sits. And that farm sits both in Fayette County and in Jessamine County. You mentioned, we mentioned what the Rural Land Management Program's goals were, which were economic and quality of life. And it's the economics that are hitting me as I'm older than dirt and looking at estate planning and looking how do I keep this farm in Jesmond County and partially in Fayette County actively able to support itself. I can't if I look at the increases in taxes and insurance and what would happen at the point that something happens to me. My other farm is surrounded by a cluster subdivision that kept the green land in the middle and backed it right up to my fence line, not even a foot from my fence line. Tallinn is right down the road. Blacksmith Ridge adjoins my property. And the cutouts in the property that we're talking about today are very interesting. One is a church. I have leased land to that church. I'm a great business person when it comes to farming. I was a great business person in my other role. I leased that land to the church for $5 a year. It has a 20-year lease going forward. I'm not going to sell that 10-acre plat. They have a playground on that land. I'm very supportive of that church and the community. The other two 10-acre cutouts are also very interesting. I'm a good neighbor. One of them is doing militia training. They have SKS. It's a great place to go out on Saturday afternoon. Can't do anything about that either. They're allowed to shoot. I'm not sure they're allowed to shoot SKSs. I go up and I very nicely ask them, could you please stop using SKS because it's going not only across my property, but it's going into the Blacksmith Ridge property. That's how fast those bullets are going. Living in this area of Fayette County and Jessamine County is like living in the wild, wild west. I have multi-million dollar homes backed up to my farm and I have trailer parts backed up to my farm. I want to keep my farm. And to do that, I'm going to have to have estate planning to allow me to sell off one or two pieces of property to pay the potential tax bill. I also want to comment a little bit about, because I've spent a lot of time thinking about this piece of property, what I could do with it. Mention timber. I've been approached by two timber companies. I do not want to do that. I like the soils, I like the trees, I like the land. That's not what I want to consider. I could consider that if I keep it agriculture. If I'm looking at how do I bring in and meet the economic supports that I'm going to need to do, I could do a solar farm there. I don't know if any of you all have looked at the solar farm contracts. They're abysmal because although they bring in a lot of money to start with, they don't tell you what happens when those solar panels lose their ability to generate any electricity. And I'm stuck with all of the equipment on my land, which is pretty hideous looking. I do have solar panels on my farm, but only for running my other farm. I can look at clearing the land and actually moving it into cattle. Again, the farm that I have is everything you all would want in a farm. We did not use insecticides or pesticides. We trained our alpha cows to eat the weeds, so we didn't have to do that. We have water with fences around it, and you drain the water, so it meets conservation and water usage. We did rotational grazing. Well, rotational grazing requires very small fields. It means chopping up this land if I wanted to put cows on it, getting rid of the timber, and putting in these very small fields to allow rotational grazing every three days, which, by the way, really reduces pinkeye. So I want this land. I want it to stay the way it is. I would like the flexibility to sell off a couple of ten acres, and maybe, hopefully, my kids might come back, which I doubt it, and they might want to build a house on some of those, but I need that flexibility to do such. This is, I hope to keep that land for another 30 years. I hope to be a farmer that long. I hope that somehow there is a consistency between Fayette County and Jessamine County. But as I said, I have right across from this property five-acre plats and trailer parks, and this is really just how do I sit, keep the land, keep the historical parts that are on that land, and also keep my farm as a whole operating. Do you all have any questions for me? By the way, you're welcome to come out and walk the farms. The most wonderful thing about this property is walking the farm. Beautiful, beautiful place to walk. Thank you, Ms. Horn. Do we have any questions for either Ms. Horn or Mr. Nichols? For Ms. Nichols, just as a point, I think you all are, well, we're aware of the fact that in our 23 comprehensive plan as well as other plans, we have a little piece in there for public engagement. What are you all's plans for public engagement? We had a neighborhood meeting, I think about a month ago. Two people basically joined. One was a property owner in the area that wanted to purchase the tract outright, and the other was a real estate agent that offered to represent him in that purchase. That pretty much dominated the conversation of that neighborhood meeting. Absolutely. All righty. Nothing against real estate agents. Yes, sir. Anything further for Mr. Nicholson? All righty. Thank you, Nick. Now, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this particular application? Either. If you would, please approach the podium and state your name. And again, it's the policy of the Planning Commission to limit public comment to three minutes, and we do not permit the sharing or borrowing of time. Well, this is a really awkward moment for me because I've never been on this side of the diocese. Mr. Duncan, it's good to see you after a year. I didn't spend the night in the Holiday Inn last night, but I know when something is designed to circumvent the 40-acre room. And unlike Castleton who did theirs according to the ordinance and according to the maps that we approve. This is a situation where the timbers going to be gone with the current 10 acre tracks but not a baby all of it. But anyway you cut the purpose of this I was in that room when we created the the a b zone and it was mainly created to buffer against what could and would happen in jessman county that we have no control over and if you look at the trailer park and the zone and the businesses there that's what it was intended to do is make a step down to judd modern whatever else would be behind it spears road is fayette County on both sides of the road. You have control over both of those what goes there. You don't need to buffer one side of Spears Road against the other side of Spears Road because both of them are in Fayette County and you have control over that. Now, if we want to circumvent the 40-acre rule, this is the way to do it. It's a state plan. It won't be used, but it will at some point. and it's not buffered against anything. There's nothing on Justin County's side that needs to be buffered against for Fayette County. And that's why my opposition to this is here. I didn't come down here just to say no. I came down here to tell you what the intent was, and that's what we need to do. Create intent-acre lots. They're too small to grow, and they're too big to mow. And I will tell you personally that I have a house on 10 acre track and I had to prove the property evaluator that I was a farmer because I've sold off 76 acres. So if you're looking out for the person that's going to buy these things, you won't approve 10 acre tracks, you'll approve 11 acre tracks. they're going to say that the house is on an acre and the nine acres is not a farm. But I'm here to tell you today that you can cut this pie any way you want to cut it. I'm not here to talk about their farming operation in Jessamon County because I don't know anything about it, but I know it's not on the line. And I will tell you that to circumvent the 40-acre rule to create 10 acre tracks was not the intent of the people in that room 24 years ago thank you all it's good to see you and i'll end at that point thank you and for the record your name is frank penn all right thank you chair members of the commission britney rothmeyer on behalf of fane alliance As you all well know, we've heard today, Fayette County has prioritized the protection of our iconic ag and rural areas. And it's crucial to our brand, to our identity, to our economic development, and overall success as a community. And as we know, our zoning ordinance, our comp plan, our rural land management plan, and more all ensure the protection of our rural area. And as we also know, the rural land management plan was updated in 2017 with extensive community engagement. detailed studies that demonstrate the economic value of our ag industries, which you've heard me say many times, have more than a $2.3 billion impact per year on Fayette County, support thousands of jobs, millions in payroll taxes to support our city, and more. And these industries depend on the soils of the rural service area that are protected by the comp plan and the rural land management plan. And I think that our community has learned over time that policies, both big and small, has significant impacts. Sometimes they're immediate impacts and sometimes they're impacts over time. And there's also been a recognition that our policies must be flexible and responsive to the complex interactions between our urban environment and our rural landscape. The buffer zone as we've heard today was drafted to create and identify suitable transitional areas between urban or higher intensity uses and core ag lands. In the history of the rural land management plan and the ab zone indicates that the intent was not to expand areas in these buffer zones or to create new 10 acre lots for residential housing in the rural area the 2017 plan identified nine parcels along tates creek with the potential for subdividing because they had sufficient road frontage but not support the idea that 10 acre new 10 acre lots could be created with newly built private road front or drags as easements. The Rural Land Management Board should be asked to evaluate if this proposed zone change meets the original intent of the AB zone in the Rural Land Management Plan. And if they have determined or are concerned that it does not meet that intent, dismissing that evaluation raises concerns about other changes that are recommended for the rural service area. State Alliance feels it's necessary to raise these concerns about the countywide impact of approving a zone change if it is not consistent with with the intent or the language of the Rural Land Management Plan and the Rural Land Management Board recommendations or the plan itself. The unintended consequences of a decision that's inconsistent with these recommendations could set alarming precedent for future zone or policy changes in the rural service area. We all know that these changes do not happen in a vacuum, and when they're inconsistent with countywide plans or the original intent of those plans, they can work to undermine the intent of the zones in the rural service area. We appreciate your consideration on this. Thank you. Is there any further public comment on this particular application? If not, Mr. Nicholson. Thank you all. Whether Ms. Rothmeier intended to do so or not, she actually proved my case for me. This is not a county-wide concern about subdividing rural land. The Rural Land Management Plan specifies nine parcels in this area for potential subdivisions. Not to preserve those nine parcels to not allow for subdivisions. It specifies that they are for subdivisions. Two of them have already occurred since that time and they're our neighbors. And also, this is not in any way circumventing the 40-acre rule. It is implementing the plan where the 40-acre rule came from. The plan specified this parcel should be buffered. It specifies that the AB zone can have 10-acre tracks. This zone change is implementing the plan. It is not circumventing absolutely any rule, any plan, any map that governs community-wide. Thank you all. Thank you, Nick. Do we have any final questions for Mr. Nicholson? All right. Seeing none, is there any Commissioner discussion or questions? Oh, I'm sorry. further from staff. Daniel Crum, planning staff, and once again just reiterating kind of how this was framed that this parcel as Mr. Nicholson indicated based on the recommendations since 1999 was for this portion of the property here to be subdivided or be eligible to seek this zone change through this public process in order to receive the minimum of 10 acres that could come with the AB zone. Really the conversation today when staff are looking at this usually is very straightforward. When it matches the applicants request, matches the land use map, it's a very straightforward conversation. This is an interesting situation as we've noted that this small portion here, less than 20 acres in size, does not. So we as staff took a look at that recommendation, the recommendations of the plan, the intent behind kind of creating those as well as the context in which it was situated. The plan as created in 99 and carried forth in 2017 would not meet sort of its own requirements of that 40-acre parcel. Kind of the intent behind the core agricultural land was keeping large tracks that were not meant to be subdivided, purposeful for agricultural purposes. So when we have a parcel here that somewhere 85% recommended for that potential for AB residential use as low as 10 acres per parcel, that's really what staff was looking at. And so we found that the portions that had that AB zone were in compliance with the rural land management plan and that those portions that were dictated to be core agricultural land were appropriate for the reasons outlined in the staff report. So just wanted to kind of reframe that and provide any kind of additional clarity. All right. Thank you, Daniel. Are there any final questions for Daniel before we discuss this? Just did you consider that the steps you're taking are going to have an impact on the folks who live at 4843 and 4801 and that they are trapped there? Well, so once again, so these are essentially the character of those two pieces and really up and down Spears Road for the tracks that sort of have been created are really residential uses, not really a large farm operation. The character of what was being proposed here with the subdivision would allow for that same type of development. That sort of small scale, less than 10 acres or so development is essentially what the AB zone was intended to do. Those principal primary uses, agriculture, and then single family residential. So we didn't consider that to be a conflict with the character, especially considering that sort of the extent that this has already been subdivided. Really the forecast of that core agricultural land is as you're moving into those areas that haven't already been subdivided up, creating that transition. So this was really just filling in a gap versus creating a brand new situation where 10-acre tracks are uncommon or otherwise not present. Mr. Polk? Have you had any conversations with Ms. Graves or Ms. Martin with regard to Mr. Penn's point that the properties adjacent to Spears Road are really not functioning as buffers? I'm not entirely sure what your question is. So when we're looking at this parcel, we're looking at sort of the context that it's buffering. So we've got Jessamine County to the left across Tate's Creek. You could create a situation here following the recommendations of the rural land management plan where you would have 10-acre lots that were adjacent to Tate's Creek Road, but some that aren't internal. So, for instance, here we've got portions of the property that if you carved up in the 10-acre lots following that exact threshold, you would never be touching Tate's Creek Road. So really it's the intent from a larger perspective, kind of from a county-wide perspective of the role that these are playing. So Spears Road, once again, has already kind of divided itself to allow for that kind of development. This is filling that in in a very limited manner. I just want to sort of underscore how limited this agricultural buffer potential really is. This is, once again, the map of Fayette County. So staff is really locking into this is a very specific determination based largely with what the rural land management plan was saying with that strange kind of conflict kind of being presented, how is best to navigate the position? Because when you look at agricultural buffer areas, you'll notice there is largely on some, they've followed the property line neatly and were able to do so. Others are sort of bisected, but create kind of reasonable extensions left where agricultural relevance could be created. Those portions to the rear of those sites could meet the 40-acre requirements. Here at the subject property, I'll actually go back just a little bit, this small sliver here is not meeting the intent of that. It's really in keeping with the character of kind of that 10-acre development that we see throughout this portion and that was created, you know, as indicated by the history provided by the Rural Land Management Board here. So that's what staff was looking at when we were juggling a piece of property that has a split in their recommended land use. Do you have enough of a command of the history of the development of this map to know why there are 10-acre lots established behind other 10-acre lots? The 10-acre lots to the west being truly buffer lots and the ones to the east not. Do you understand why that happened and if it makes sense to continue that precedent? Yes. So I think the folks at the Rural Land Management Board here would have kind of a better insight into that history. But I think this conversation really is sort of working with the context that they had back in 1999, where some of this had been divided up piecemeal and sort of, you know, they provided a history of kind of the changes. moratorium when these were permitted those acreages changing and so just settlement patterns for you know however long have kind of set somewhat of a context but I wouldn't be able to speak definitively for some of those internal parcels but I would invite you to touch base with the folks there for that. Mr. Owens? One question real quick Daniel as a follow-up to Mr. Powell I never did really hear the answer. Let me ask a little bit more pointedly, did you or the staff ask the Rural Land Management Plan for a recommendation on this? No, we reviewed it as per usual with staff's analysis of the Rural Land Management Plan. Thank you. Mr. Owens, just to clarify, we relayed to the Rural Land Management Board a request directly from the Zoning Committee, which was for more historical information. I kind of think that's the reason they're here today. It is. So if they want to comment on a zone change, they are welcome to at any hearing. But we don't, it's not a matter of practice for the staff to ask the Rural Land Management Board for their recommendation on a zone change. Okay. You know, the first thing from Mrs. Martin was that they had been asked not to speak on this itself. I think they stayed true to apparently what I've been asked of them. So thank you. All right. Do we have anything else for Mr. Crum? Mr. McClure? Yeah, Mr. Crum, would you go in your presentation, I didn't see a comparable list in the staff report, but could you go to where you sort of highlighted all of the sort of goals goals and objectives. Yes. The, you know, as I read things like emphasize the preservation, protection, and promotion of the iconic bluegrass landscape along rural gateways and roadways serving as primary tourist routes and as I read our comprehensive plan goals for preserving the rural areas, for our environmental and sustainability goals, our, the broader goals of how we see the rural area developing in the comprehensive plan, you know, continuing to divide 10-acre lots is not intuitive. And what I see from the presentation is that we have a map here for this buffer zone that allows for a minimum of 10 acres, which this proposal is trying to essentially squeeze out as many of these 10-acre lots as they can. And I mean, I feel like we're in this weird bureaucratic circle where this doesn't meet the goals and isn't where we want to go, but there's this map that says it's a minimum, but it's this map to buffer nothing. I just wonder where all of our other goals went. Yeah, so the core considerations within the comprehensive plan is sort of the duality, right? We have the urban service area and we have the rural service area. So here, the comprehensive plan dictates that we use that rural land management as that primary guard, that primary resource, and it was evaluated as such. Because it's different considerations. They speak to kind of the same thing. But where I would kind of direct you as far as the context of creating new 10-acre lots is once again harping on how limited this particular type of recommended land use is. So since 1999, affirmed in 2017 as we were dealing with creation of the place builder and adopted as a part of that plan as per reference, this is exactly what that property was envisioned for. I know there's considerations as far as how we view the entire county. This is what this is speaking to. These are not the policies specific to the AB zone. This is speaking to all of the development. So some of these things may not apply in this very limited areas adjacent to more urbanized context or context that could rapidly change because we don't have any control over them. Speak to kind of a larger body of issues. So when we're looking at a map-based plan, this request meets that for all but 15 or so percent of that. That conversation there, is that appropriate given the context of everywhere around it kind of developing in that fashion? From planning staff's perspective, that core guiding principle of let's protect these farmable lands, these large parcels, these areas that can continue to be productive as such, and not to kind of ignore the context of Tate's Creek Road in this area, Spears Road in this area, that since the 80s or 90s has already shifted away from that. So it's trying to implement those both. The comprehensive plan calls for us to give the rural land management primacy, but also being supported by those policies that were generated and kind of directed from the rural land management plan itself. So that's where you're seeing the policies here kind of coming from. But they're speaking to kind of the entirety of Fayette County's rural areas, not just the very limited A-B zoned kind of recommendations. That's not a question, just a comment. We seem to have shifted in our language from talking about the buffer area as a should-be area. When I'm reading the text, it says it can be. And when I'm looking at Map 8, it says parcels with potential for subdivision. It doesn't say it needs to happen. It doesn't say it needs to be in 10-acre plots. It's there as a potential buffer. I used to ride a bicycle out to Valley View Ferry. Very little has changed down in that part of Tate's Creek, and I won't tell you how many years ago that was. That is not an area that is developing. I rode up 169 all the way to Nicholasville, and there is development going up in that area. There's development going up in other parts of Tate's Creek, but we're talking about an area that doesn't need buffering right now. So I think starting with the notion that because it can be doesn't mean that it has to be. And what I'm hearing is that what we're being asked to do, and I hate to say this because if I were in Mrs. Horn's shoes, I'd be doing the same thing. But we're being asked to create 10 acre lots in order to solve a financial problem she has in Jessamine County. I don't think that's our problem. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Are there any other questions for Daniel? If not, Mr. Nicholson. I just wanted to make one point in direct response to Mr. Michler's question. This is not buffering nothing. This is buffering the exact things that the Rural Land Management Plan speaks about with regards to the mobile home park that is directly across Tate's Creek Road from only this parcel and the B1 property on Tate's Creek that is only adjacent to this parcel. So the exact language that the buffer zone describes as its reason for existing is directly related to this exact parcel. Ignoring the map in this situation actually has the disastrous ramifications of that map no longer means anything for any part of Fayette County. That's the scary part. Mr. Nichols, do you know how long that trailer park's been there? Before 1999, I can tell you that. Well, the terrain's done gone in terms of buffering. Well, but it is buffering that Jasmine County intensity from Fayette County's core agricultural land. That is what the specific language of the rural land management plan basically says, is that it is trying to buffer the land that is on the east side, like with the land on the east side of Tate's Creek Road, opposite Jasmine County, from the core agricultural land of Fayette County. This strip is specifically designed to implement the Rural Land Management Plan. I urge you not to ignore the Rural Land Management Plan. All righty. Do we have any discussion amongst the commissioners? Any further questions? If so, now is an appropriate time. Mr. Owens? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very much conflicted with this. Let me get to this. I'm very much conflicted with this thought here. I'm still looking and trying to figure out what we're buffering or transitioning from. There's definitely no urban service boundary in the area. What I see to the opposite side of the road is rural area. Jessamine County can subdivide. They can subdivide to a five-acre minimum, or they can subdivide to a one-acre minimum in a cluster housing that must have 80% in agriculture, remaining in agriculture. To me, that's really pretty good. I'm very concerned with Spears Road. There's been much discussion about that. The opposite side of Spears Road is Fayette County. The supposed aspect was we're going down Tate's Creek and creating this buffer zone to buffer against Jessamine County, not Fayette County. The one track of land, 19-acre track of land is concerning to me. To me, that's AR land. And we're obviously definitely talking about a 40-acre minimum, and that's nowhere near 40 acres. Could it be 40 acres? Yeah, it could be. It could be, you know, that lot increased one way or another, but they've chosen not to do that. To me, the rural land management plan offers that the buffer zone should receive rigorous review. I don't think we've been in a rigorous review manner here. I think more can be done. I understand that transportation gets involved with accesses and so forth, but at this point, to me, that's kicking the can down the road. I think a different layout, if they wanted to do tentative care tracks, a different layout to not have as many possible accesses out onto Tates Creek Road, which you all have seen the picture, should probably have been down there yourself. is a is can be a narrow road right right in front of this property with with curves it's very concerning to me in in talking and reading and reviewing the rural land management plan I found on page 120 where it starts summarizing that search summarizing I think most of y'all have that it starts summarizing the changes from the 1999 Rural Service Management Plan. And number three in that states the 10-acre lot recommendation was removed as the minimum lot size was increased to 40 acres. It further states in Chapter 1 summary, removed 10-acre lots as a challenge, add new challenges such as regional planning, public perceptions, tourism, changing face of agriculture and economy. You know, I think we can do better here, simply put. And at this point, I cannot accept this. I don't know if it would be worth a continuation to try and come up with a different plan or just simply a disapproval to let them go back to the drawing board altogether. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Oh, one other thing, you know, I hesitate to because they came here to do otherwise, you know, should we ask the Rural Land Management Plan for their recommendation on this or would that be later? I think it's a good question. You can ask them, but as the council for that board as well, I can tell you they didn't vote on a recommendation. So I would leave that to them, to Ms. Graves and Ms. Martin, as to how they would want to handle such a question. We were asked simply to provide you information not to make a recommendation and told specifically that that was not our place. So if you want our recommendation, we'll have to go back to the Rural Land Management Board and discuss it with the full board and let the board vote on what that recommendation would be. So we are here because you asked us to be and we've tried to provide as much information as we possibly could, but I don't think we feel comfortable making a recommendation given that that wasn't what we were asked to do. And we haven't discussed, the board is aware that we're here and we discussed it this week that we would be coming, but we did not ask the board to approve any kind of recommendation. Mr. Wilson. Essentially, since this is one of the things, we've gotten two pieces of information here. One is what the intent was of people who were sitting in that room that day. And secondly, what's here written in this piece of paper. I would not be opposed at all to allow you all to have an opportunity to go back and review this and to come forward with a recommendation, not to say that we had to follow it or anything like that, but I'd like to know. I mean, you all proposed it. You wrote it. I'd like to know a little bit about the intent as well related to what other people are saying. Mr. Penn was saying that he was in the room. His intent was, but I don't get that. So I'd like to give you all a chance as a board to go back and discuss it and come forward with a recommendation. At this point, the Planning Commission does not have more time. The Planning Commission does not have more time because we asked that they postpone last month. So we are up against the 90 day deadline unless the applicant wishes to postpone. Okay, that's what I was getting ready to say. The applicant has a final say on this. So, we are not willing to postpone the zone change, but we're fine basically either postponing indefinitely the subdivision plan if the layout is actually at issue. Like, I'm not kidding when I'm saying that this is not imminent by any means. And so, we can postpone the subdivision plan indefinitely, bring back another plan in 10 years where we show road access to anything but like we're here to get the flexibility in order to have the zoning in place that is specifically called for in the plan but if the issue is lot layouts we're okay getting rid of the plan right now thank you mr nicholson do we have any other commissioner comment or questions or we could certainly entertain a motion on the zone change first. Since everyone's concluded, I personally, I share Mr. Owens concerns, Mr. Poles concerns. I think the points Ms. Worth made were also correct. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Everybody's kind of looking this way. I'm still, I appreciate what Mr. Nicholson said. I think at this time, a completely new plan would be better suited, simply because there's been concern as far as Spears Road have a need to be included, so maybe only part of this would be subject to zone change. so at this point I'd be willing to move for disapproval of plan MAR 24-7 Kurt R. Volk exempt family shared trust and probably should take a break to talk to my legal staff. All right that's a motion to disapprove does it have a second? Judy? Thank you. Is there any discussion to that motion? And if it passes, we will take a 10-minute recess to write up some findings. Could I ask... The motion needs to include findings. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Could I ask a legal question? So if we were to approve the zoning change, would we have authority to influence the size of the subdivisions of the property when the map is submitted? from what i heard mr nicholson say he they you could postpone the development plan um i don't know you know you're going to see whatever they bring back to you and have a discussion about it at that time um you know so whatever happens between now and whatever development plan comes back to you uh could certainly be incorporated but your action on the development plan would be at the time you vote and i you know i can't tell you what it would look like or what it would say certainly you all could voice your concerns as you do when you review all development plans but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to turn out exactly the way you might want it i can't answer that question for you all right so we have a motion in a second maybe this is an appropriate place to take a 10 minute recess and work with legal on findings. So without objection, we'll adjourn for 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the room. All righty. Is that better? Can you hear me? Good. Okay. We are back in session and we are having just some little technical stuff, so we'll work through it. There is a motion on the floor that has been seconded. We paused and worked with legal on findings. Mr. Owens, do you want to share? He's logged in. Oh. Sorry. Mr. Chair, so you ready to reiterate my motion is for disapproval of plan MAR 24-7 Volk This state's located at 8200 Tates Creek Road based on the following findings. One, the proposed rezoning does not follow the Rural Land Management Plan goal of providing a compatible transition for more intense land uses in Fayette County as the land surrounding the property is natural or agriculture in nature. Referencing protection policies number two and four in the Rural Land Management Plan. Number two, the request does not comply with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan as the request to create a buffer zone does not provide transition from core agricultural land and incompatible land uses in Fayette County and is surrounded by agriculture and natural land and therefore does not safeguard rural land in Fayette County. Referencing theme E, goals number 1B and 2A. Number three, the request does not comply with the intent of the Rural Land Management Plan by creating undesirable tracks of less than 40 acres in the rural service area. Number four, the proposal does not comply with the intent of the Rural Land Management Plan because there are no more intense residential or commercial uses adjoining this parcel across the county line that would justify the need for an agricultural buffer. referencing protection policy number four in the rural land management plan that is my motion sir thank you mr owens so it's there's a motion we have a second we have findings is there any just miss we're seconded is there any discussion before the planet commission votes seeing none we will put it to a vote That passes with one abstention. Which Ms. Jones does that? The abstention goes with the majority. Okay. All righty. Now I suppose we need a motion on the development plan. The development plan, I would say, the plus five, excuse me. I will move for a postponement plan MJ SUV 24X5 of the property. Motion will be for postponement at this time. Okay. All right. Motion for indefinite postponement on the plan. Do we have a second? Ms. Worth, thank you. Any discussion? If not, we will vote. and that carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Our next item on the agenda is on page four, Classic Traditions, PLNMAR 2412. Thank you. Located on Granicus should be the existing comments that have been provided so far regarding the Classic Traditions application. So that is for your review as we go through this process here. But the applicant is seeking a zone change for the property at 363 Pasadena Drive. This is 2.114 acres, and they are seeking to rezone this from the single-family residential, the R1C, to the townhouse residential, R1T zone. The applicant is seeking this in order to establish a townhome development on the subject property. As in all developments within the urban service area that comes with a discussion of the place type and development type, the applicant has decided to place this in an enhanced neighborhood and cite it as a low-density residential development type. Staff agrees with the choice in both the place type and the development type can be appropriate at this location. But to orient ourselves towards where the subject property is located, the parcel is located here, shown in white. It fronts on Pasadena Drive as Pasadena crosses over the railroad tracks and makes its way towards Nicholsville Road. To the northwest, we have the Hillendale neighborhood. And then further up to the north, we have Southland Drive with Clay's Mill bordering kind of the neighborhood further to the west. But zooming in a little bit closer gives you a much better idea of kind of how this property is set up and the role it kind of plays for this entire community. So what you're seeing here is a mix of residential zones. The single-family residential with those lighter yellow colors has been that predominant zoning in this neighborhood as the neighborhood was being built out from the 1950s, piecemeal coming from multiple directions. The subject property retains that single-family residential zoning. However, there have been some changes in the immediate area. Directly adjoining to the west was a recent rezoning within the past couple years to the R1T zone. That was done by the same developer that is coming to you today. So that project is already underway. The subject property is seeking to be rezoned in order to establish a very similar townhome residential use. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property that shows the adjoining land uses. So the access onto Pasadena is occupied by a single-family residence. The rest of the property is otherwise open. You'll notice that this is sort of the termination of several sub-streets. So as kind of typical residential development at the time, the Hillandale neighborhood was built in piecemeal, small sections being developed at a time, stubbing for future connectivity, as has been called for with the land subdivision regulations since before the 1950s. But the subject property itself has got the frontage on Pasadena with a stub in on two sides from Hillendale here as well as on the opposite side here. Eastway to the north also stubs into the subject property. These developments on Sunseeker and Eastway were done in 2004. There was actually a rezoning in order to allow for slightly denser residential development within the Hillendale neighborhood. So a lot of the conversation today is going to be kind of oriented towards connections, what benefit they provide, how is that related to the comprehensive plan, and how does this sort of fit in with the vision of the neighborhood since it's been being built out from the 1950s. Here we have a view of the existing home on the parcel, once again, single-family residence on a rather large lot. Here we have a view of Pasadena as you're heading towards Nicholasville Road. Sunseeker is located right here and serves that adjoining development that would be connected with an extension of Hillandale Drive. Here is the access for the Sunseeker development. This is an interesting case. At the time that Sunseeker developed back in 2004, the connections on the adjoining property or the subject property here had not yet been made. And so the rezoning at that time was done with a temporary access. The internal streets on Sunseeker would be built to public standards with the expectation that once connected to Hillendale, and that future connection was planned out, that this particular portion here, the Pasadena access, was required by the Platt, approved in 2004 as sort of the condition and the negotiation with the neighborhood to be closed. And so that Sunseeker would effectively just become another extension of the Hillendale neighborhood. Here we have a view of the stub in from the Sunseeker development. So the subject property is located on the opposite side of those existing trees. So stubbed in in 2004, this portion was named Hillandale Road, despite being completely separate from the other portion of Hillandale Road because it was anticipated that those would be extended as required by the subdivision regulations. Here is the opposite side of the property. So this is Hillandale Road, where this is stubbing in to the subject property here. To the right, we have the entrance point for the rezoned townhome development that is currently underway. We have a view of Hillandale Road kind of looking the opposite direction. So existing single-family residential development, very indicative of that 1950s style of just typical residential development. Eastway was another extension that was extended in 2004. So still single family, but sharing that same termination with a public street shown here. So you can actually see the opposite point right here of where Hillendale, and so this location right here was always planned as an intersection to provide connectivity. This home in particular is an interesting example because it fronts on Eastway, yet its garage is located on Hillendale. To get your car from where that car is currently parked to the front of the house requires you to drive 1.1 miles in order to make that 50-foot connection. So here we have a development plan for the subject property. Ms. Galt will be on afterwards to kind of describe it in more detail, but really this is matching kind of the character of the existing development to the north. So we've got single-family attached with incorporated driveway units that do not have connection to Pasadena. Much of the conversation as far as the development to the north and the subject property was access and access spacing. So when the rezoning to the north came through, it was determined that there was not sufficient space there to have a safe intersection with Pasadena. Likewise, the subject property here also doesn't meet the access spacing standards. Based on that information, the applicant has opted to show the road terminating here. There will be a turnaround area here, but it's providing pedestrian connectivity. So the sidewalk network extends through here, connects to the Hillandale system, and most importantly, provides public road continuation of Hillandale all the way through as well as Eastway here. This was planned once again since the inception of both of those neighborhoods in 2004 and was continued from the subdivision plans of the 1950s. But once again, 11 units matching somewhat of the character of the existing development. When we talk about place type and development type, this is solidly an enhanced neighborhood. This is a development that is adding additional residential units in a manner that is a little bit more dense than just the single family attached, but is really focusing on providing connectivity. making these last connections that have been called for for a very long time since the development of this neighborhood really began. Within that, the R1T zone is not a recommended zone. None of the R1 zones are. The applicant has made a case that this type of development is appropriate in this location. Given the existing single family, they are kind of matching that without getting out of the scale and size development that would be sort of most appropriate there. Staff finds the choice of that low-density residential, matches the low-density residential that is there, and it provides sort of an appropriate continuation of that style. So I wanted to provide, I know that in our conversations with the neighborhoods, I did attend last week a neighborhood meeting with the Hillandale neighborhood. It was very well attended. I don't have the exact figures, but it looked to be probably north of 40 people. And a lot of the conversations were about connectivity. There were some concerns about stormwater and some other sort of final development plan considerations, but really at this point in time, that was the kind of most raised concern. There were some voices from Sunseeker that would like the connections to be made, so I just wanted to provide kind of the context for how we got to the point we are today. So this is the plat of kind of the western portion from the subject property of Hillendale. This was done in the 50s. The subject property would be sort of to the right, separated by sort of the townhome development that exists, is located right here. But the property stubbed in. It was not cul-de-sac at the time. It was stubbed in with the expectation that development would continue on there. Moving into 2004, this is for Eastway Drive. So this added these units and created the lot that currently serves the townhome development being built. Here we have the subject properties boundaries shown in red, and we have Hillendale Drive showing being connected. The plat at this time provided for specific criteria. It said that this lot at the bottom had to be built as if it was a corner lot because that Hillendale connection, when that subject property developed, was required to be made by the subdivision regulations. So here, back in 2004, when those units were added, you have the situation where the roadway is called for and it is being shown, although not dedicated at that time, because they could not force the owner of the subject property to develop at that time. It occurs piecemeal as new development occurs. And here we have Sunseeker. So once again, subject property located on the opposite side. Here they have the other portion of Hillendale stubbing in. The access point that I noted earlier that serves as Sunseeker's current and only access is currently off of Pasadena. This is on what would now be a buildable lot. There was a requirement put in in 2004 that if and when the development of this property occurred and that roadway was connected, that was the more appropriate roadway and that that lot's temporary access should be removed. It would then become a buildable lot. So I know there was some conversations at the committee level on sort of what impact that would sort of generally have. So essentially, removing this access point, and I know this was one of the questions that Mr. Commissioner Mickler raised, would essentially cause the, while this would be better connected to the internal community, for sun seeker folks to now get onto that same point of Pasadena would be about 0.7 or 0.8 miles to kind of circle around. Staff promotes connectivity where it's safe and makes sense. This is an instance, though, where this development has already been approved. So essentially changing that note to kind of change the conceptualization of that access would require a new plat essentially agreed to by all of the owners bound by the initial plat to kind of change that. So really that aspect, the closure of Sunseeker is really not under review at this time. It's just a byproduct of kind of the development that is coming before you. But it is important contextual information for you all to kind of have. But suffice to say, in 2004, this whole development was rezoned and approved based on the appropriateness of its primary and sole access coming from within the Hillendale neighborhood. When we get to the subdivision regulations, it's pretty clear. Section 6.8.B says streets shall provide for the continuation of existing or dedicated streets on adjoining or nearby tracks in all directions. So we have existing streets, public streets, stubbing in three directions that the applicant's proposal is seeking to finalize. So when we were looking at this from a comprehensive plan level, connections are called for throughout the comprehensive plan. We talk about making and improving communities. Connectivity is kind of a core instance here. By providing that connections of someone in Sunseeker is now able to walk from a spot that currently isn't possible to Hillendale neighborhood. It provides for better connections, dispersion of traffic throughout that neighborhood. Provides for safe social interactions where you're not having to access more intense collector and arterial roadways in order to, you know, sort of just utilize your neighborhood. So dispersing traffic, providing connectivity, increasing residential density slightly. It's only from single family to single family attached, but it is an increase of the parcel. It's taking a parcel that's only had one single family residence and improving it in that way. We found it was in line with kind of creating context-sensitive development. Once again, townhomes, adjoining existing townhomes that are providing those connections that are so vital. We looked at this and found it met the criteria for land use, transportation and pedestrian connectivity, environmental sustainability and resiliency, site design, as well as building form. As always, it's subject to the approval and certification of the corresponding development plan, but staff really looked at this as a way to provide additional needed housing in a context-sensitive manner and being the kind of last puzzle piece of connections building from the 1950s, but reaffirmed in 2004 when this development kind of last occurred. So staff is recommending approval at this time. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff. Cheryl will be on to discuss the development plan. Do we have any questions for Mr. Crum at this point? I have one question. Sure. On the Sunseeker Platt, you said if that was to be amended, we would have to get, was it everyone who owned land at the time of that Platt recording, or would it be every property owner today? It would be every property owner today. So all of these properties, you know, it would be different if, say, this particular plat came in alone and that note only applied there, but this is kind of that entire, you know, however many units. So there is complications with that, especially with it being sort of outside the scope of this request, even though it is so intimately tied. Okay. All right. Mr. Mickler. This is changing for this property. Could you go back to the development layout for this property? the this is this is change the current property entrance was on pasadena right yes and this is changing the orientation to the new segment that they're building um Um, going down Pasadena now is a traditional sort of, it's a collector, but it also has the character of a neighborhood street with houses facing towards it. But was there discussion, because it looks like we're putting a berm up and kind of we're kind of trying to remove this from that Pasadena corridor, both visually and in its connectivity. And I was curious what the discussion around that was. Yeah, yeah. And so much of the consideration, I'll bring back the picture of the front of the house. So once again, we've got development here that sort of is existing. And a lot of this neighborhood is sort of a testament to sort of streets being built one way, but then sort of traffic, other considerations kind of changing the character just kind of due to what developed around it. You know, this area looked much different in the 1950s. So to the point. Or due to lack of connectivity. Sure. So what we look at today as the property kind of comes in and redevelops is what the existing context is. And so when we looked at this, the development plan staff took a look at that and said, okay, this access spacing, though it served a single-family home, you're suddenly kind of increasing the number of units that are going to be accessing that and kind of changing the way the site functions. While we promote connectivity where it's safe, the relationship between this parcel, the adjoining streets, as well as sort of this overpass heading out to Regency, that once again, when the adjoining development even further from that point had concerns about the connections there. So really the inability to kind of meet safe access spacing for roadways, especially roadways that would make kind of larger connections and would kind of carry a larger road was sort of the main focus and really necessitated this being kind of internally oriented. As far as the landscaping or the berm, I don't believe that that is necessarily required by our ordinance in any sort of normal landscaping sense. And so that is sort of malleable. But when we're talking about the connection and whether or not there should have been a connection here, that access spacing was sort of the main consideration on how the site is oriented. All righty. Do we have any other questions for Daniel? If not, Ms. Galt? Sorry, I had a lot of slides. I was going to add just a little bit. When that previous development plan was in for the townhomes, part of the concern they put the berm up here was because, and they didn't want to do the connection, is because it was just at such a slight offset that wasn't going to work, if I remember correctly, at the time for that zone change. And so it just didn't meet the requirements. It was too close. It was not a safe travel area to try to connect to swing through. That was from the time when the zone change was done up here. And so it was asked that the berm be put up so that people couldn't cut through and that this was going to be kind of a stub before those townhomes. They do have a turnaround up here for this other area. So they have a turnaround for the garbage and fire for them to be brought back out here to Hill and Dale. That's just, I didn't mean to change the subject, but that was kind of the back kind of a little bit. So, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. This property is MJDP 24-45 Vernon and Roxy Harris property. This is located at 363 Pasadena. you will have you will see that you all have revised conditions on a pink sheet for this plan. We have the typical sign-off conditions. I agree with the connection coming through here. The townhomes all connected here. We have the turnaround for the fire safety and garbage to be brought out here. We had talked about if there was a way to connect these, and after speaking with the engineer, there was somewhat of a major grade change to be able to go from one section to the other. So they chose not to, and so that's why you'll see the list of townhomes on the one side with the turnaround on the other side. You have our typical sign-offs on the first few conditions. Then we have modified driveway locations to achieve driveway pairing. We had a change in the ordinance. So we have a few townhomes up here which don't have the garages side by side. So let's see like this one here. So they need to correct that. Resolve purpose of amendment. Purpose of remnant track north of Hill and Dale and extension at the time of the first final development plan. They have an area that property boundaries had gone all the way through past Hillendale and down through here, leaving a small track of land right here when you leave Hillendale going through. They had, talking with the engineer, they have discussed that at the time, currently it could be an open space. They're talking about maybe talking with the property owner there at the corner to see if they want it. So we felt like that could be tied at the time of the final development plan as to how that's going to be resolved. Resolved connection to joining townhomes. This is where we were talking about the fact of the different elevations. We're not quite sure that that's going to work, but they can work on it. This is just a preliminary development plan, so this is not something that they're going to pull the building permits off of. they will be back to see us with a final development plan. Review timing of street connections, and all this will be done because they will be building the street to connect Hillandale from one end to the other and Eastway all at the same time as why they are constructing this access and doing construction on the property. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you, Cheryl. do we have any questions for Ms. Galt? I have a question. Ma'am. We'll have... A resident or an applicant? Ma'am. I work for the city. I work for the Division of Planning. Okay, I didn't know you didn't... Ma'am, there will be time for public comment and questions later. All right. Applicant. Mr. Carter. Good afternoon. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. The applicant is here as well. Classic Traditions and they're represented by Jonathan Kurtz. I'll try to be as brief as possible because I don't want to just repeat everything that y'all stated. The property is located at 363 Pasadena Drive, and we are asking for a zone change from R1C to R1T. The property is 2.16 acres, and it's to the west is seven townhomes currently under construction. and the applicant is the builder of those seven townhomes as well. Pasadena Drive to the south, Hillandale, and Eastway Drive to the north, and Sunseeker Court to the east. The existing house on this property, it's 1,177 square feet. It was built in 1956. the applicant bought this property in August of 2023 and prior to that it was owned by the same family all the way back to the original building of the house in 1956 so when we talk of this as a piece of a puzzle the same family has owned that piece of the puzzle since 1956 So no development has happened on that property because that same family owned it and had no intention to develop it. So now they've sold it to classic traditions and we're here today asking for this zone change. As KRS states, we are required to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And for the reasons that we have mentioned in our justification, we feel like we are in compliance with the comp plan. The biggest area that we need to focus on, I think, today is connectivity. So I'm sure you'll hear this a lot. Connect to Hillandale. Connect to Eastway. Connect to Hillandale over by Sunseeker. or remove the connection to Pasadena, don't connect to Pasadena. I mean, connectivity is the big issue. So our proposal does address these issues. We will make the connections. We'll put that last piece of the puzzle in. We'll finish Hillendale. We'll connect to Eastway, and we'll connect to the Sunseeker Court as well. I want to talk a little bit about our neighborhood engagement. So the neighborhood asked us to attend their neighborhood meeting they had on July 8th. there was at least 40 plus, I think I counted one time, 42 people there. It was attended by the staff. Traffic engineering from Lexington was there. The owner had a representative there. Vision engineering was there, myself and Mark McIntosh, our transportation engineer. They had a lot of great questions. We spent two hours answering questions and kind of talking about the project. After the meeting was over, we stayed another 30 minutes and continued to answer questions. So I felt like we had a lot of good input from the neighbors, and hopefully we answered their questions well. There's a lot of neighbors here today, so I'm sure we'll see what they thought of our answers. But to me the biggest, I guess most repeated question at that meeting was connectivity. Many of them don't want it and they like their stub streets, they like the way they end and they don't want the cut through traffic that they claim is going to happen. So again, one of the goals of the comprehensive plan is street and pedestrian connectivity. So what we're proposing to do is to close all those gaps. We're adding all the street connections. We're adding sidewalk connections. There's currently all the sidewalks dead end, so we're closing that loop. We're also adding connections from Pasadena through our development to Hillendale. The existing townhomes that are under construction have that same connection, so there'll be two new sidewalk connections from Hillendale to Pasadena. Another big concern I heard was the people that lived on Sunseeker Court. They don't want to be forgotten. They want that connection to Hillendale, and they are tired of coming out onto Pasadena. It's unsafe. They don't like it. When they bought their property, their plat, they had no way in or out. They had a stopgap entrance that was never meant to be there, and it's been there longer than it should have been. But if this is approved, we'll close that gap and we won't close that entrance, but the owner will be obligated to close that entrance onto Pasadena. And if he doesn't, I believe the city can block the road if needed. So with that, again, we're in agreement with the comprehensive plan. We went to the technical committee, subdivision committee, had recommendations of approval from both of those. The staff recommends approval for both the development plan and the zone change. And with that, we ask for your approval. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Are there any commissioner questions for Mr. Carter at this time? Mr. Mickler. Yeah, Mr. Carter, could you just speak to the orientation where Pasadena, for the bulk of it has houses facing Pasadena. And then your preliminary development plan calls for sort of a berm, a landscape berm. And I'm sort of just curious what your all's goal with that was. Well, originally when we did the first seven, the berm was to make people not be able to drive from our access road to Pasadena. Currently there's an entrance there, but that entrance will actually be removed. And so really the berm, I guess as it is today, really serves no purpose. We can remove the berm. We have no issue with that. It was more of a carryover from the first plan onto this one. What the applicant has done is he's built a, I don't know how you describe it, kind of a pillar, stone pillar type fence along. It's an ornamental fence, and he's built that along Pasadena. But he's got openings in it, gaps for pedestrians to walk through. As far as the orientation of the buildings, almost directly across the street on Longleaf is a similar development. It has a public street coming off of Pasadena, but townhomes are oriented the same way these are oriented in that they face the public street, not Pasadena. So in that regard, I think we're very similar to what's out there today for that portion of Pasadena. But you are right, there's a lot of entrances on down with residential houses. It's a bit of a unique road. and then on the uh the other side you have the corner sort of again on the street sort of planned as a detention yes area um i mean i would i realize this is a preliminary plan um i would this is not a public street that you're proposing down the middle of this, right? No, it's a private access season. And so I think we have to give you a waiver for that. Is that right? You're correct. And we'll ask for that on the final development plan. And so for me to feel good about giving a waiver for that, I would want to see that you're doing as much as you can to really engage and create good visual and aesthetic connections down both of those public streets since we're not facing the townhomes there. And so I'd like, as you work through this, to hear how our public streets are going to be treated, considering you'll be asking for a waiver to not face the houses long. Yes, and a similar comment was brought up at our neighborhood meeting about what's the detention basin going to look like and how deep is it going to be. And so we're not there as far as the exact design of it yet. In fact, we haven't designed it at all. But the intent is it to be fairly shallow and nicely landscaped. So I guess to your question, our intention is to do exactly what you're saying. Okay. Mr. Polk? I think that Mr. Mickler didn't say it, but I think that part of his intent was with regard to the appearance of the townhouse as it engages Pasadena. And my fear is that you've got the side of a garage facing Pasadena, which is not exactly the most friendly possible facade design. And I think it would be a benefit to the neighbors if the ends of the townhouses facing Pasadena had enough attention to make a presentation that feels appropriate given the way the rest of the street feels. Yeah. Have you been out to the site and seen it? I'm sorry? Have you been to the site and seen what's under construction? No, I haven't. I do have a photograph I could put on the overhead that shows kind of how the ends of the units are, if you would like to see it. Yeah. Thank you. You can see the, I don't know what you'd call that fence, a pillar type fence, but he does have windows on the side of it. There's another picture that shows what the front of them look like too. So, but that'll give you some idea of what's proposed. And the units that are, the new units, the 11 units will be this same floor plan and look. All right. If there are no more questions for Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Thank you. All right. At this time, we will hear public comment. Again, everyone is limited to three minutes. When you approach the podium, please state your name clearly for the record. But anyone who would like to speak, you're welcome to do so. I just want to ask a question. There's quite a few of us. Do you want us just to line up? If we could just sort of one at a time where I've got a list and I can use the list, go one by one if you'd like. Why don't we just do that? You please go first, though, ma'am. My name is Gail Weidner, and I live in the Hillandale subdivision, and I'm part of the Hillandale Neighborhood Association. This is a complicated development with many moving parts. due to the controversial nature of the proposed street connections hill and dale to eastway and the issue of stormwater runoff we do not have consensus by the neighbors on any of these issues since neither one of them is actually settled we realize that stormwater improvements in sanitary sewers will be verified and certified prior to certification of a final development plan. However, neighbors have real issues that probably won't show up by purely statistical information. Our input would be helpful to the developers engineer. From our neighborhood historical perspective, planning has been willing to listen to the neighborhood on past projects at least three in the last 20 years where compromise was achieved. We ask for help from planning, the developer, and neighbors so that we are part the process in coming up with acceptable compromises to try to satisfy all parties we ask that these be that there also be deed restrictions on the hoa the planning staff's agenda summarizing their ideas has already praised the increase in density afforded by these 11 new townhomes therefore we ask that units may not be used as strs or airbnbs lack of affordable housing in the Hillandale is apparent. There is an abundance of SDRs in place already in Hillandale. This makes obvious that there's no need for these units to become temporary rooms for tourists in the neighborhood. If the road connections stand as they are, we ask for the following concession. That traffic calming efforts in the form of bulb outs and others be installed along Eastway Drive. Specifics cannot be determined at this time. Input from neighbors, traffic engineering, and the developer will be essential. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Jeff Schwab. Jeff? I'm Jeff Schwab. I live at 2445 Eastway, which was built way before 2004. I also held property at the corner of 245 Southland Drive, which I think comes to play in this. I believe the opening of Eastway, I know the one map's not up there, but you've got the side street where the police officer lives. It comes on the hill and dale there. As we know, the way everybody thinks and goes now, nobody wants to hit a traffic light, so everybody going to Southland Drive will take that shortcut. They will cut through to avoid the traffic light. But at Regency in Pasadena, they also avoid traffic lights, but they avoid the Southland Regency, where my business is at, corner. My issue with Eastway being opened up is, yeah, obviously I live on Eastway, and it's a dead end, and I like the quietness. Yes, that's part of it. My biggest issue is you're going to end up within six months. This is the nicest guy in the entire world. We had some discussions after the neighborhood meeting. I think his numbers are wrong. We have opposing views, but super, super nice guy. You're going to have to within six months because of that daycare down there and everything else. You're going to have to put a traffic light on Southland Drive at Eastway within six months. I know I'm right on this. Even with that train bridge there, you're going to have to put lights on the other side of the abutment. And as a business owner on Southland Drive, the reason I moved to that section of town and then moved to this section of town with my home is because Southland is great for business. We've moved over there 12 years. We've been in town 48 years as a business. I don't want another traffic light on Southland Drive. I feel that it will reduce all the businesses on Southland Drive, but we don't want to be Nicholsville Road. I don't think you're going to have an option if you make that a cut through. And it is a shortcut, and everybody uses shortcuts. Until November, my mother lived on Richmond Road across from Henry Clay's, huh? Neither my mother or my wife or my friends will ever take a main road. They cut through every neighborhood. but it's becoming a tradition. It is going to occur that you're going to have to put a light at Southland Drive and Eastway. I do not want that as a business owner. I do not want my street open. I mean, that's a personal thing. Obviously, we sit in the front yard all the time, and it's nice and quiet. That's personal. The traffic light on Southland Drive, which is going to happen, he said the number of, he predicts the number of cars, 40 more cars an hour. I'm assuming that's on a 24-hour stretch. So if you take the high product hours, that number is going to be a lot higher. Is that correct? Sir, I'm not Roger. So the gentleman that spoke to you from traffic engineering, I can't. But yeah, but you told me. Okay, maybe it was him. Never mind. I'm confused. Sorry. But anyhow, he is a really nice guy. And I got your card in my pocket, but I thought that you were the one who told me that. I really do believe you're going to have to put a traffic light at Southland Drive and Eastway if you open it up to a shortcut. And it is going to get really busy. I don't want speed tables. They want speed tables. I don't want them on my street. The fire department and the EMS do not like it. But I do believe you're going to end up having to put a traffic light there. And I think it's needless. We don't have to do it. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I'll go ahead and call a few names so that we can have a cue. Let's see. Next is Gail Leitner. Oh, she spoke. Okay, thank you. Steve Justice. Pardon me. Sure, sure. And then Julia Harover. I'm Carla Rodriguez. I live at 2509 Sunseeker Court, and I'm happy there. I don't mind if we connect, but I have a real interest in not having Hillendale connect to Eastway. All that aside, please bear with me. I'm a close neighbor of Steve Justice, and he and we have employed an attorney with Winter's Law Group. And I would like, if you don't mind, I would like to read this just as quickly as I can. Request for postponement and objections. PLNMAR 2400012, PLNMJDP 2400045. Dear Planning Commission members, I write on behalf of my client, Steve Justice, of 2421 Eastway Drive to request a postponement of this commission's consideration of relative to the 363 Pasadena Drive, the subject property, and in the alternative to request the commission deny the applications. This correspondence should be included in the official administrative record of this proceeding. I believe it was emailed this afternoon. Mr. Justice has lived in his home, which is a block from the subject property, for 24 years. He's a member of the Hillandale Neighbor Association. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Hillandale neighborhood. As this commission is no doubt aware, the current city council is disinclined to hold public hearings on zone change requests that are approved unanimously by the commission. Full representation at this commission's public hearing, along with comprehensive consideration of relevant stakeholders positions, is therefore imperative at this stage in the process. In this case, as in many others, the applicant failed to have a pre-application meeting with the neighborhood and adjoining property owners as directed by the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan makes it clear that in making development decisions as a community, process is important. policymaking policy, placemaking policy number 10, 2018, comprehensive plan, page 175, speaks in mandatory terms regarding this collaborative process. From the very beginning, applicants should clearly lay out the economic realities of their property and neighbors should express the needs of their community. Going forward, there's an expectation that applicants will engage in good faith with neighbors in a visioning process about how the needs of the developer and the community can be met. Imagine Lexington, Placemaker Policy 7, emphasis added. As a result, Place Builder encourages meaningful engagement between applicants and stakeholders for design and envisioning of the development before the process begins. If this directive is to have any meaning, then the process contemplated by Place Builder and our comprehensive plan is to be relied upon by our community. This commission must give provisions such as these teeth by holding applicants accountable when they fail to meaningly engage with the community prior to filing an application. To do otherwise... We don't do that at the planning commission. Was that letter submitted... It was this afternoon, but evidently if it's not submitted by 10 o'clock, it doesn't come to you guys. I can clarify. So that letter was produced after the cutoff for public comment, and so we instructed the applicants to introduce that into the record at the proceedings here. But it didn't meet the same batch. So on your computers you have all the comment that was sort of submitted previously. This is not reflected in that, but the applicant wants to introduce that into the record. So will we get this introduced into the record? You are doing that by reading it? And then when you give us the paper copy, it will be part of our minute. Okay. So you will get it later. So, I mean, I'd like to be. The email also indicated Mr. Justice would be bringing the letter with him. Okay. Okay. We anticipated that would be. Okay. I just want to be able to read it. Yeah. That's great. The Neighborhood Association didn't have a meeting until last night, so we couldn't finish it until today. And I am a member of the Neighborhood Association as well. Okay. Do you want us to try and read it through three or four people, or how do you want to go about this? I think I know the commission always wants to hear from representatives. So what is everyone's preference? do you have copies you could distribute i have two okay two copies all right i have five or six more copies of this i mean even if we could two to a copy we could i think that the commission would like to read it before we discuss or vote okay so highlight is that what you want me to do if you if you could just bring up as many copies as you have and we'll we'll pass pass them around And then Mr. Justice, as you mentioned, you might want to highlight the things that are covered. I've got just a couple key points that I could head on to the case of a number of teams. Sure. Yeah. Okay. I, Robin and I do. Yep. Okay. All right. Mr. Justice, there was Julia Harover, John Straley. Is he talking? Yes, Chairman Davis. Oh, okay. No, ma'am. Oh. All right, Mr. Justice. Okay. All right, Steve Justice. I live on Eastway Drive. I want to just highlight a couple things. Connectivity's been discussed a whole lot. In the Lexington subdivision regulations, stub streets are addressed. And there has never been any signage, any signs posted by the contractors that built this subdivision that are supposed to be there permanent and maintained, stating that it's a stub street with the intention of people not buying into the neighborhood and realizing that eventually it wasn't going to be a dead end. That's somewhere in here. It's traffic number nine. It's, but the, I think, no, connectivity number eight. But anyway, our big deal is we've been given short notice. I have been asked to represent somewhere around 170 to 200 people, speak for them. We had the subcommittee meeting on the 3rd of July. First heard about this thing June 13th. July 3rd, we had the subcommittee meeting. Then somewhere shortly after that, we realized we could not manipulate the system. We're unorganized. We don't know who the system like Mr. Carter would or any of y'all. And then we had to have a neighborhood meeting on the 18th, 18th of Thursday. They came out, did a question and answer. We really didn't get to respond to them, but we were very polite, raised our hands, personally stopped all that. But we raised hands. Then on the 18th, today's the 25th, this is seven days later, first time we'd had a discussion about this property. The neighborhood does not, it's got answers, or it's got questions to be answered, six pages to be exact. We've got to collect money for our representation. We've got to get communication out. Right now they're just being notified, hey, there's a meeting to come to. We don't understand this. We haven't had the opportunity to discuss how people feel about what all this is. We've got questions and we need more time. So we're actually asking for a postponement. 30 days would be really nice. It gives us a chance to get 200 people or whatever organized. I've got a brilliant team that's working with me to come up with great information, but we just need time. It's all on here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Justice. Would anyone else from the public like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Terry Ackerman, and my husband and I own a home on Eastway Drive, and our daughter and son-in-law live there. And I would just ask that the board not approve the zone change, the planning commission and the city council not approve the zone change. You know, the first set of townhomes, I believe, was approved in 2019, the seven that are at 375 Pasadena. So those still aren't completed yet. So it's not even known how that will affect traffic on Hillendale without even considering the 11 at 363 that are being proposed today, plus the cut through on Sunseeker then that will bring the traffic from 31 homes on Sunseeker, plus the 11 townhomes, plus the seven that aren't even finished yet that will all come down the Hillendale extension down the east way. Mr. Carter's right. There will have to be a light. There will have to be speed humps. Eastway will be extremely busy, extremely dangerous. It's not a big road like Pasadena. And so I would ask that the zoning change to not be approved because we don't even know how the seven townhomes will affect because nobody's living in those yet. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to comment? You're most welcome to. Hello, my name is Jennifer Bailey, and I live on the new part of Eastway Drive that you saw on the map. My husband and I built a home there 18 years ago, and there have been lots of issues back there. And because of those issues, I have to oppose changing the zoning. There are a lot of things that you guys just don't know. And it has to do with the way that it was originally engineered. I wish I had a map because I just don't. But across the street from us are what they call protected lands. They're wetlands. Okay. But, and there are four houses, new houses beside that. And so they go downhill. and there used to be a natural spring there, okay, and it's still there. And the way that it was dealt with was they put in 20 feet of gravel, okay, three feet deep, and then put subsoil on top of it. And that's supposed to manage that natural spring. However, those homes have constant, constant, constant water problems. They have spent thousands and thousands of dollars. dealing with the water. So the water is supposed to go, like when we get a big storm or whatever, the water is supposed to go through the gravel, out of culvert, and into the wetlands. But it leaks. And so several of those homes have had, like, foot-high standing water in their crawl spaces. And there's been lots and lots of engineering to try to move it around. And when they do that, it ends up ponding. So then they have to deal a well. And it's just one patch after another. another. And so we had no idea what's going to happen when all that green space is taken out. And then we have just a bunch of asphalt and multi-unit homes. And not only that, in our house, we have in our backyard and all the way in our front yard, close to the sidewalk, two sanitary sewer manholes. And there was a 1,400 square foot sewage flooding that happened, I guess, around five years ago. And it was a mess. And it was just standing water. And it stood there for about four days. I didn't know what it was until I finally smelled it. And I thought it was just us. They finally cleaned it out because where the old infrastructure meets the new infrastructure, it was clogging. And then it clogged across the street where Tom Martin used to live and went into his shower. Well, that's right beside the wetlands. So what I'm trying to say is the infrastructure is not okay right now. And then you want to add all this new infrastructure and tax that system already, and we're going to have problems. And all this is going to be done before they've even done a study. And, I mean, the plan never even was completed on Eastway Extended, and we've just been through so much, and we just ask that you please, please look at this with open minds and open eyes and help us. And thank you so much. Thank you. um when i get to the point this this is just a layout of a whole thing probably too big to get on there but i'll just leave it up here they they know what we're talking about greetings my name is john hayes i live at 2322 southview drive i'm a member of the hillendale Neighborhood Association. In the broader sense, I am very happy to see Kelly Spencer developing this property at 365 Pasadena. It's a 2.16 acre parcel. Seeing what he's done at 375 gives me warm, comfortable feelings about what the quality of work, his staff have been professional and easy to engage. And there's issues with them not engaging us before the plan. but on the whole they're very approachable okay and so is matt carter and and the but there's some impacts that change when they do this on the footprint of the neighborhood and when we review the preliminary plans i need to ask for some concessions that many local property owners feel will result in in a better solution than what's proposed Point blank to the Planning Committee, your plan on the road does not improve the neighborhood. It destroys value. Point blank. You are destroying house value because when those local roads become connectors, the appraisal value of the houses goes down 3 to 5 percent. And there's 80 houses or 100 houses that are impacted by this. I think that's an issue. That's a million dollars. Put it on the table of house value is going to be destroyed. I think there's other ways we can lay these streets out, and I'm going to ask the commission as a concession that you send Matt Carter off with the neighborhood. We come up with two or three alternates. We take those alternates to the fire and sanitation guys and say, look, you can get your trucks here. You can do this, you can do this, do this. And then we come back with what the connectivity plan is that is what the neighborhood wants. The people who live there are the people who have skin in the game, and they get the connectivity they want. there's a solution to this road problem that has all these people here, okay? And the technocrats don't want to listen to it, okay? But there's a plan. There's a way to do this. There's a way to keep fire happy. There's a way to keep sanitation happy. The other issues we have with the sewer, the water runoff, yeah, that's real, okay? There's huge problems with wetlands here that have to be addressed that are just being dismissed out of hand by the plan. Yes, there are wetlands. I can show it to you on the adjacent properties where there's properties that are declared wetlands in the plans. There's issues here that have got to be addressed that have been swept under the rug. And we need to address these drainage issues and the sewer issues because, yes, it's a real problem. The water is going to go somewhere, and there's lots of houses that are downhill from where this property is. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. To my colleagues on the commission, I have to excuse myself out of time restraints, but our board secretary, Mickler, has agreed to chair the rest of this meeting. Thank you. Hello, my name is Eric Spangler. I currently reside at 2489 Eastway Drive. I have multiple concerns with this development located at 363 Pasadena Drive. First, it's unknown to me whether or not the current infrastructure, i.e. sanitary sewer, which we spoke about already, and stormwater sewer systems can handle the significant load increase that 10-plus multi-family units proposed at 363, whether or not it can handle it. I feel a postponement of this zoning change is prudent at this time in order to better understand the unique challenges, engineering challenges that this development encompasses. They talk about the sanitary sewer. We know where they're at on that. Another concern I have, stormwater runoff when and if Eastway Drive is connected to Hill and Dale. The approximate runoff for one inch of rainfall over one acre of land is 27,152 gallons or so, which will end up being around 48,000 gallons for a one-inch rain event coming just from this new development. The SEAP is able to handle that pretty easily. It has a lot of capacity. However, over the course of a year, it ends up being around 2 million gallons, which is a significant difference. So the runoff goes into the seep, and what isn't either seeped into the ground or transpired through the ecology runs out the backside, northeast corner, down onto the railroad tracks, and they have a ditch that runs along the railroad tracks, goes down to Derby Drive into a basin, and finally makes its way into Wolf Run. I'm not sure exactly what the water output to the railroad would be in Wolf Run, but it could be anywhere from 500,000 to a million gallons a year. That's not an insignificant amount of water. So I'm curious what the environmental impact to the seep, which is an environmentally sensitive area, is going to be when we increase the stormwater runoff by that much. The railroad is a stakeholder in this also, and are they aware of this development and how it might affect them? Increased traffic on Eastway Drive is a huge concern. It's going to increase traffic by tenfold or more, I'm sure. It would make a great cut-through, no doubt. But Eastway Drive is only 27 feet wide, and there are a lot of cars parked on either side of the road. So it becomes a real safety issue, people speeding up and down the road. It already happens a lot. We all know about speeding in neighborhoods. It's not a good collector road. It's just simply isn't. It's too narrow, too many cars, not enough. There's no way to mitigate traffic right now. You're going to have to have a light at Southland Drive. That's a dangerous intersection already. But in conclusion, I believe postponing the zone change for 363 is prudent direction to take at this time. Additional study of sanitary sewer and stormwater capacity and the effect on the wetland seep need to be looked into deeper. I can't support this at the moment. Yeah, if anyone else wants to speak, please come forward now. Is there anyone else for this zone change that wants to speak? Ms. Clark, you can go ahead and if anybody else wants to speak, we can go ahead and line everybody else up at this point. I'm John Straley. I live at 258 Hill and Dale. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, you don't have a quorum. He's not here, though. You don't have a quorum right now. All right, so hit pause for just a second. We should have a quorum in just a minute. Where's the pause at? Is it on here? It hadn't started, so. Thank you. All right, we have our quorum back. Thank you for the patience there. Again, I'm John Straley. I live at 258 Hill and Dale. I've lived there since 1987. My concern about this development is it's from a safety aspect. You're going to put 50 townhouses and homes up on that end that are going to come out Hillendale or come out Eastway. It's going to be like for me a traffic thing to watch people zoom by daily. There's a lot of little children that live nearby me, preteen children. There's a lot of cars parked on the street. And it's a safety concern that I think you guys need to consider that. And there needs to be some type of either out east way or some out Hill and Dale, maybe Maybe some come out the seven out Hill and Dale or the other ones come down east way. See Hill and Dale already gets Millbrook, which is at the end of Hill and Dale. Those cars, a lot of those cars come out Hill and Dale. So there's a lot of traffic. It's a big traffic issue and I think you really need to take that into consideration in how this if it goes through how you look at it, other than just what's already being preordained that we're going to connect it all up. It's going to be, to me, it's going to be too much to understand if people maybe want people to go this way or that way, but I think there needs to be some consideration when you want to think about, it's not really going to improve the neighborhood. 11 more townhomes plus seven that are already there, it's not going to make the neighborhood better. So thank you. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Clark? Yeah, she's putting something up. Is that better? It's better. It's across the street. Very clear. Let's go with that. Okay. My name is Amy Clark. I don't live in this neighborhood, but I've been doing some listening. Who was it? Bill Farmer always used to say he didn't want to discuss anything without seeing a map of it, so I thought it would help to have a map. What you've got here is three dead ends coming into Pasadena. Let me see. How does this work? If you hold the top button, it will give me a highlight. So you can see Pasadena coming along, and you can see stone coming up from the bottom. The three circles are where there were three driveways originally and now there are three developments. The circle nearest stone but not quite aligned with it is now called Leland Drive and it has only pedestrian access to Pasadena. The middle one is the proposed access easement or private road. And the third one is where Sunseeker currently has access, but it has been long agreed since 2004 that it be removed when the access is available from, can you see, north of, yes, north of Pasadena. Hildandale meets Eastway coming vertically and connects up into Sunseeker. So what's happened is you're adding about 36 homes. 2004 you added 18 or so, then the seven that are under construction, about 11 that are coming now. And they all, in a rather dense area, will not have access to the nearest Collector Street. The Collector Street is substandard in width by four or five feet. It needs stack lanes for left turns. I've marked one onto Stone and one onto Regency. Obviously it can't be widened at the bridge. And you haven't a shared use path. You don't have bicycle connections. You can't add this kind of density, and police don't approve the plan, the development plan, which is also a subdivision plan and should provide for access. What they're asking for is a waiver for lot access to public streets, and the public streets need to be there. You almost have, and this is of great concern to the neighbors, Eastway connecting Southland to Pasadena. And if I may, I would just say it needs time to really talk with the neighbors and the traffic engineering. It's my feeling that that connection should be made along Leland, but it would take a lot of work. The LFUCG has a responsibility to make that traffic work before approval of a development plan and subdivision plan and even the increased density. Thank you for your indulgence. Thank you. Does the applicant have any response? Thank you. I guess what I'd like to add is everything they're saying is valid, but is it the appropriate time? This is the zone change. A lot of those are details that can be worked out on a final development plan. problems with storm and sanitary. We can't solve those on a zone change, but we can on a final development plan. When we talk about safety of a road, connections are where the safety's at. It allows better response times for fire, police, ambulance. Right now, they're having to go through this long loop to get to the end of these streets. closing this gap will fix that problem. Right now, garbage trucks have no place to turn around. Fire trucks have no place to turn around. They have to back out. I don't think that's what the city intended. That's all I've got. Thank you. Staff, do you have a response? I'm new to this here, so I don't believe anyone's representing her. I'm going to get some guidance here. There is not a citizen rebuttal. Okay, thank you. Then go ahead and continue. Right. So just wanted to touch on kind of a couple different aspects here. As was kind of correctly noted by Mr. Carter, it's sort of important to take note that kind of the step that we're currently at. you all as a body are determining if this zone is appropriate and based off this preliminary plan, if that concept is in agreement with the goals, objectives, policies of the comprehensive plan. So some of these very technical discussions, which are absolutely valid and absolutely will have to go through those processes, if this zone change was approved, would still take place, would still take place in a public process, would still take place through the staff that is best equipped to kind of analyze that. So with regard to the issues like stormwater and the like and that impact, that's sort of the core consideration. I did want to kind of touch upon kind of the role of streets. There was some language that's sort of been used in consistency here. The streets that we are currently looking at, Hillandale, all of these internal streets here, those are neighborhood streets. Those are local streets. It is appropriate for local streets to connect to local streets. Pasadena is a higher intensity roadway, hence the discussions on the access for that. And it's important to look at connectivity not just at these parcels here, but connectivity for the entire development. So what is sort of lost in translation here is this improvement here creates access for folks on Eastway. Currently, Eastway Drive extends further up, and all of that traffic either funnels through vertically all the way to Southland or turns in on another neighborhood street, Holly Hill. So all of the 50 homes that kind of make up the end of this cul-de-sac have to exit one of those two ways. So the interest in decrease in traffic, dispersal of traffic, is just as valid for the other homes in the neighborhood. Currently, there are multiple avenues from this neighborhood to reach all of the streets that have been cited by the neighborhood here as problematic. This doesn't suddenly open up the neighborhood to Southland. There are three or four avenues to already do that. What this does is disperses traffic. The route that is currently shown here, if you were coming and desired to go through this neighborhood to reach, say, Southland, there are more efficient ways to do that. going through the existing network, going through the existing streets, in order to come down where the subject property is located, you're traveling down and then back up. There's already an existing network of streets here that kind of accommodate that traffic and disperse it as they are intended to do. So really looking at this as a whole system that is sharing the responsibility and the load of that traffic in a way that makes sense, is predictable, and doesn't have sort of, you know, dead ends that create inconsistencies inconsistencies where you're suddenly driving over a mile to get to your front porch. So staff just wanted to reiterate that those connections are called for in just about every document you could look at when it comes to traffic management, the comprehensive plan, and when it was in the subdivision regulations when these neighborhoods were being developed. So staff once again just impresses upon the need that any development here, not just the townhomes, if this were to be, say, divided up into single-family residential lots under the current zoning, that expectation would still be in place. So just wanted to kind of provide some context to that. What staff is looking at when we say that connections are generally a good thing. So I'm happy to entertain any other questions you may have of staff. Thank you. Tracy, did you have a comment? Yeah, I apologize. I was thinking of the Board of Adjustment. We do have objector comments as rebuttal and closing statements on the order of the hearing on page two. So if Ms. Clark Or someone else from the neighborhood. Usually we ask for one representative, so I apologize for that. Is there a representative, for example, from the neighborhood association who would like to do a rebuttal? I have the assent of the others. Five minutes for rebuttal. Thank you. I have the assent of the others to speak. But I need to tell you there's a big sinkhole in that development. I'm told of that. And certain neighbors believe that the commission is not aware of that. I know you are aware of certain sensitivities, environmentally sensitive land and wetlands and a seep. Certainly, I think it would help if these were better understood before approval. I want to ask whether a preliminary development plan as handed in, the plan handed in, can be found compliant with the zoning ordinance when it necessarily entails subdivision. The lots are noted on the development plan. And so the lots need access, and the access needs a waiver if it's not going to be each individual lot giving access to a public street. I would urge you not to give approval of the development and subdivision plan even as preliminary at this stage because you can see how much discussion and confusion there still is about traffic routes, about access, about the adequacy of the public streets to provide the access that the plan would load onto them as proposed. It's open to you to vote either yes or no on the zone change and then in a separate vote to postpone the plan, the vote on the plan or to make that vote today. I think that's the thing I wanted to say in rebuttal. If you're approving this density and these lots and these points of access as a preliminary, There's missing, I think you're missing any assurance that the connectivity is adequate vis-à-vis Pasadena. Others have said that various loops, long loops and byways and cut-throughs can emerge as the result of the increased connectivity. But without that connectivity connecting all the way to Pasadena, you're going to get what Mr. Michler mentioned, lots of loops, long loops. Thank you. Okay, that closes that part of the hearing. That brings us back to Commission members. Do any members here have questions? I guess maybe I could have asked earlier. I don't think engineering is here to address wetland concerns. Is traffic here to provide any clarity to what we've heard? Good evening. Are we in evening now? David Filiatri, Traffic Engineering. Just to speak to connectivity, I know that's been the big point here. We do encourage connectivity for the reasons that have already been spoken, and public safety connectivity through just getting through neighborhoods. And it's in within character of the existing neighborhood. Most of the neighborhood in Hillandale connects. They have streets that connect on both ends. So there's not a lot of cul-de-sacs. And as far as cut-through traffic, you know, if we use the same logic, you know, those that live on the end of Eastway would then be able to cut through to Pasadena. In my opinion, neighbors, members of a neighborhood using neighborhood streets to get to other places is a reasonable thing. As far as cut-through outside of a neighborhood, through the neighborhood, if that's the definition, kind of in my mind going through where would you have me coming from and going to in order to east way to be the most alluring choice i'm trying to in it's more difficult to get there because you'd have to go up clear view right on hillendale left on the east way down to southland when your other options are regency and uh south view those have regency as a signal but still i'm trying to and then where would you go to what's your destination of the on the other end so I'm not sure and as far as traffic signal if we just take an example like the transportation cabinet is going to put in a signal at outer loop New Circle off-ramp to Frankfurt that just met warrants. We generally try to use the MUTCD which is our kind of a national guideline on all traffic devices, but also traffic signals And it would need at least about 60 cars an hour on the side streets for eight hours to meet that particular warrant And that's not always, doesn't always hold true historically. There's been other locations where we put in traffic signals, but they're expensive. So we try to go by a policy, and typically that's following our national guidelines on when traffic signals are warranted. So I don't believe, I would be very surprised if there was ever a warranted traffic signal at the end of East, excuse me, yeah, Eastway, not East Hills, Eastway and Southland. So just, and that's not safe, it's impossible, but I would be surprised. So any specific questions, though? Thank you, David. Oh, good. This isn't exclusively to this zone change, but we've heard a lot about concerns about just traffic safety on these local access streets as we connect them. And when we've had other cases where we've brought new development into existing areas, there's been, outside of this hearing, some conversations with neighborhoods regarding tools that the city has in terms of traffic calming or speed or things like that. you know, as we look at these sort of long, straight streets, is that something that you are comfortable sort of meeting with the neighborhood? So, yeah, I think the neighborhood has met with Roger Mulvaney, so he's a colleague, and he's in charge of the NTMP, which is the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, And they're the ones that have the toolbox and some dedicated funding from the council for traffic calming, whether existing. And so that would be one of the avenues if there's speeding issues on a neighborhood. They'll complete a study if desired and look at that for solutions. There are other options we have had. Instances where I think somebody mentioned bulb outs and things like that. when the street gets built, if there are elements like that brought into it, at least in the vicinity of this development, there's things there that can limit roadway cross sections as far as how wide, because the width of a roadway generally determines how comfortable somebody is to, or how fast they're able to go. So there are elements like that. And then just on a grander scale, we're doing a complete street revision, and we're hoping to incorporate more traffic calming elements into existing and future developments. So especially as the urban growth boundary gets expanded, new neighborhoods come online. We want to incorporate traffic calming elements from the outset rather than trying to retrofit. Thank you. Are there other commission member questions? This is for you, Ms. Wade, and it has a bearing on the request to postpone a decision about the development plan. what would you say is not the average but the typical time between the time a preliminary development plan is approved and the time we planning commission or the subdivision committee gets to see a final development plan? That's a good question. I think it depends to some degree on the intentions of the developer. In some cases, it's very preliminary and there aren't any specific plans for a property. In the case where it's speculative, we would probably not see a final development plan for two years. When an applicant knows exactly the product they want to build, in this case, it's literally being built next door. generally as long as financing is not an issue we would see that within six to 12 months. Did everybody hear that? The time between if this preliminary plan is approved today the final development plan would probably not be up for action for six to 12 months. So for those of you who are Mr. Justice I believe it is worried about organizing your neighborhood and getting representation there's a lot of time between today and when the real development plan, the one we're really going to vote on, would take place. And so I'm going to step aside here and say I would encourage you all to find out as much as you can about the process, find out the timelines, find out the steps. There's a group called the Technical Committee, which are the people who represent Division of Engineering who will be looking at the sewer plans for this development and the water plans. Mr. Filiotreux in traffic will be looking at the traffic plans. All of those things are not in stone at this point. When they come to us in the final development plan, we'll be looking at that. But we're not there yet. So I would encourage you to find out, ask the people in the planning department, give you information about the process, ask them lots of questions, and then ask for meetings with traffic, ask for meetings with planning. That's all I got to say about that. Thank you. Are there other questions? I was going to say, Mr. Chair, whenever you're ready, I'm ready to make some motions. The floor is yours. Okay. Well, first of all, before I make the motion, let me simply say thank you for your patience. you all have been here as long as we have and we know that's not always an easy thing to do so we thank you very very much for that secondly to remind you that our job here additionally is to primarily deal with the zone change the zone change is then defined by what is in the comprehensive plan in other words if if the applicant puts forth a plan that is in line with the comprehensive plan then we have to have some real strong reasons as to why we cannot approve that the third thing is As it relates to what my colleague, Ms. Worth, indicated, you will have plenty of time based on the preliminary plan versus the development plan to come in with some additional discussions with the staff. We hope that you would take advantage of that. So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLNMAR 24-12 Classic Traditions Incorporated with the conditions identified by staff. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If no discussion, please vote via Granicus. The second part is the development plan. And again, let me emphasize that this is a preliminary plan, but in the preliminary plan, the staff has also made some suggestions about that. word if they're writing here about the fact that many of these issues will be built built within the deep in the final development plan as a commission we have the right once that comes back for us we can reject it all total but by that time we hope that you all have had an opportunity in the community to work with the staff and work with anyone else that you see bit in order to get your address your concerns let me also say that i don't think there was here a person here the staff the applicant or the commission we're in uh definitely feel for you in other words we're in agreement with some of the issues that you all brought here today so we will certainly be looking to do resolve those issues in the best way possible with that in mind i would offer approval of pln mjdp 24-45 vernon and roxy property with the 11 conditions have that have been identified by staff We have a motion and a second. Yeah. Ivy got it. Yeah, that's okay. We have a motion by Mr. Wilson and a second by Ms. Barksdale. Any discussion? Please vote via Granicus. All right, it passes unanimously. and we move to the next. And again, thank you all for sitting through a long hearing. We really appreciate that. And we'll be looking for your comments as we move forward to the next phase. So that moves us to the ZODA for the amendment to Articles 5, 8, and 26, the Landscaping Tree Protection. And we've got staff here to present. Okay. is yours. Good afternoon Planning Commission my name is Eve Miller and I am a senior planner within the division of planning for the long-range planning team. Can you all hear me okay? Great, okay wonderful and it's good to be again here with you all this afternoon to discuss our zoning ordinance text amendment proposal regarding trees and commercial landscaping and as you all are probably familiar, these articles were implemented in 1983 and have not been significantly updated since that time. The proposed amendment consolidates enforcement and citation regulations in Zoning Ordinance Article 5, updates landscaping regulations in Zoning Ordinance Article 18, and provides clear and modernized definitions for tree protection standards in Zoning Ordinance Article 26, all incentivizing green infrastructure best practices. Also here with me today are several subject matter experts from the Division of Environmental Services, and they will be here today to answer any questions you all may have. So today our presentation will include a brief review and the reasoning behind our zoning ordinance text amendment request, and the recap of the outreach that staff has conducted, and then we will dive into the details of the proposal itself, and then lastly we'll review the timeline and the next steps for the proposal. So the Division of Environmental Services provides a wide range of environmentally related services including civic beautification programs, community-wide sustainability initiatives, urban forestry and protecting of our street trees, greenway management, mowing of our city's corridors and county roads, internal energy initiatives, and public outreach and education. Amongst all this, a few Division of Environmental Services staff work with the Division of Planning as part of our city's planning and development processes, as well as our compliance and enforcement of our zoning ordinance regulations. The Division of Environmental Services helps to ensure that new development does not harm or at least has a minimal impact on the environment in a few ways. First they make sure that development does not impact streams or floodplains, cause erosion or harm to our soils, disrupt environmentally sensitive sites, or occur on or near sinkholes. They help to protect our tree canopy by working with developers to not make unnecessary tree removals and to protect trees during development and construction. And then lastly, environmental services staff ensures that developments have the proper landscaping and screening between zones, especially the commercial and residential zones. Planning staff began discussions with environmental services in August of 2023, so about a year ago now, about seeing if we could review the zoning ordinance articles in which they helped to oversee and to see if we could modernize some of those articles and expand their current efforts. We are here today to formally present that proposal to you all, and we believe they are in support of the goals and objectives of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. So over the course of this ZODA process, staff have reached out and engaged several stakeholders and interest groups about phase one of our zoning ordinance text amendment proposal, including meeting with local landscape architects and engineers. We have also met with the Building Industry Association of Central Kentucky, or BIA, on three occasions to date. All of our meetings and events have provided staff with really great insight into our proposal, which has allowed us to confidently prepare this and present this to you all this afternoon. Which leads me to my next slide. Staff thought it would be helpful to touch on City Hall's sustainability efforts to demonstrate its relevance to this ZOTA proposal as well as the 2045 comprehensive plan. In 2022, the city hired its first sustainability manager within the Division of Environmental Services to lead holistic, coordinated efforts related to sustainability. Miss Jada Griggs and her team have completed a wide variety of projects, some of which are detailed on this slide. And the long range planning team enjoys and we have worked alongside their office and we believe that this ZODA proposal not only aligns again with the comprehensive plan but also with City Hall's long term efforts regarding climate resiliency and sustainability. So with our intent explained I'm going to next summarize the proposal for each of the articles within this SOTA. First, in Article 5, Citations and Enforcement, we are proposing to add the Division of Environmental Services to the list of enforcement agents in the zoning ordinance as they already oversee landscape enforcement actions. Also in Article 5, the current fine structure lessens the amounts of fines to those individuals who do not appeal their citations. Staff believes this to be counterintuitive and should be removed. This change would bring environmental services enforcement structure into alignment with other enforcement divisions. And then lastly, in Article 5, we are proposing to increase the administrative abatement fee from $75 to $150. Next, in Article 18, commercial landscaping, we would like to update and streamline zone-to-zone landscape perimeter requirements to match vehicular use area requirements. Also in Article 18, we have proposed to update landscaping plan requirements to include more detailed landscaping and planting information, including adding plant species, statistics, elevation, certification information, as well as the planting schedule and any other conditions placed on the plan by either the Planning Commission or the Board of Adjustment. We're also proposing to see an emphasis or preference for native plant species being used in landscaping, and using native plant species is better for all of us long term and it's as close to a guarantee as we that we can get that the plant will not have to be replaced in a few years time. In article 18 we are proposing the use of columnar trees to be prohibited for required landscaping and then in section 18-6 we are proposing to edit the current language to reference the city's planting manual, allowing for the ability for that manual to be evolving and updated as needed as our tree and landscaping needs change over time. And I'd like to note that Environmental Services has received funding in the most recent budget cycle to update the planting manual, so we would expect it to be updated alongside Phase 2 of this SOTA. In Section 18-7, we are proposing to remove the Landscape Review Committee, and the intention to dissolve the Landscape Review Committee is primarily driven by our aim to streamline and make more efficient this variance process. The Landscape Review Committee was originally formed to provide feedback and guidance from experts in the field before the Division of Environmental Services had been established at City Hall. So with that, with the division all being created, we have staff and experts in-house, and the need for additional review is not necessarily needed or even utilized for that matter. Should the ZODA be approved, the divisional planning in consultation with the Division of Environmental Services would oversee the variance procedures, and then subsequently, all the findings would be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment for final approval. Next is Article 26, Tree Protection Standards. And in Article 26, this provides environmental services with the guidance and authority to protect our tree canopy, working with developers to make sure they don't make any unnecessary tree removals, as well as protect them during development and construction. As part of this ZODA, we are proposing to update the article's purpose to include language about the beneficial impact of trees on environmental health as well as human, mental, and physical health. We are proposing to amend the definitions listed in Article 26-2, including approved tree list, critical root zone or CRZ, diameter at breast height or DBH, drip line, greenway, healthy tree, ISA certified arborist, tree protection area, tree protection barrier, and tree protection plan. In addition, this proposal would update the definition for significant tree. We are including adding a requirement for a particular species of tree to be a minimum 4 inches DBH to be considered significant. Currently, the species that are protected under that definition does not have a DBH measure, so we would be adding that requirement. Also, in the same definition, staff are proposing to lower the diameter breast height, or DBH, from 36 inches to 12 inches. And research states that the environmental benefits of a tree exist well before they reach 36 inches DBH, and they contribute to the preservation and environmental benefits of our community well before then. The definition of tree stands was previously defined as a grouping of at least 15 trees, and in this proposal we are lowering it to three trees, each with a minimum DBH of 4 inches. Recognizing this is a dramatic shift from the current ordinance, staff are proposing to incentivize the preservation of tree stands in the text amendment by adding an additional 25% canopy coverage towards their existing tree canopy calculation. We have also updated the tree protection plan requirements, including that the plan be prepared by an ISA certified arborist or a registered landscape architect. And then finally we found a few cases where we could replace gender language with gender neutral language. For example, we found a few cases with the word his delegates, we've changed that to their delegate. So the version of Article 26 before you this afternoon has two minor changes from the draft that you saw on June 24th, and the two minor changes that we reinstated was that we reinstated the importance of water quality and retention in Article 26's purpose, and then the second minor change that we made is that we added in the significant tree definition that the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet oversees the state and national tree champion tree list. Also with me here today is this lovely visual that my colleague Boyd Sedway brought in. And this visual we thought might be helpful to demonstrate it is a three by five or three and a half by three and a half block of wood. So it's close to four inches in diameter breast height. And then if you turn it to its side, it actually demonstrates what a 12-inch diameter tree would look like out in the wild. So we are going to pass this on to staff and allow you to circulate it around and take a look at it. So I will. Oh, I'm sorry. So as a final reminder and refresher, our main goal for phase one is to codify current processes that we have as well as modernize our zoning ordinance. A second phase ZODA is recommended to ensure that ordinances are more environmentally friendly. We see phase one as the foundation for a second phase ZODA in which we would achieve the more comprehensive policies we would like to see. In phase two, in article 18, we would like to require native plant species to be planted, not only a percentage of required plantings. And then we would also like to look at repealing our landscape corridor ordinances in our zoning ordinance as well as the city's ordinances. And then in Article 26 for Phase 2, we would like to strengthen the enforcement components that extend beyond the planning and planting phase for trees, as well as continue to develop the definition of a significant and protected tree. And then finally in Phase 2, staff would like to continue to explore the creation of a mitigation program. So our last slide this afternoon shows the current timeline and process for this ZODA. We have attended four Planning Commission work sessions before today, those in January, February, April, and May. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment before you all this afternoon for the reasons stated. and we are happy to answer any questions or feedback you might have for us. Thank you all very much. Mr. Wilson. First of all, thank you so very, very much for your work. If there's anything that you all have demonstrated is persistence. You've been inclusive and you've been collaborative. We could ask for no more, but for me, it would be almost like having a root canal every day. but you all have done a really good job and I think the beneficiaries of the City of Lexington. Now, no plan is perfect, so there will always be opportunities, I guess, to improve and what have you, but I just wanted to thank you for your work publicly. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Ms. Miller, looking at the last slide, I kind of feel bad that the subdivision committee wasn't included on the January 3rd presentation. I know for myself, I had to leave, and not because of the subject content, just because I had other things I had to get to. But this, I think, is very important. I would echo Mr. Wilson. It is important, and you all have done an excellent job with it. Thank you. Thank you. I think we've got public comment first for that. All right. Thank you, Ms. Miller. And we'll open this up for public comment at this point. Mr. Murphy, please step forward and state your name. So before we move on to Mr. Murphy, I think there were a number of letters that were submitted prior to the hearing that should be in Granicus as well. It's under letters from the public? Letters from the public, Bill says. Yep. Okay, go ahead. Okay, thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here today on behalf of the BIA, the Building Industry Association of Central Kentucky. Todd Johnson is the Executive Director of the BIA. He called me this morning, said he couldn't be here, and asked me to give the association's comments. I've been on the committee, which has been working with the Division of Environmental Services and the Division of Planning on this. We thank them. We've had a number of very good meetings, very cordial meetings on this. Unfortunately, we cannot give our full support to this at the present time. And the reason is, as they mentioned to you, and as we know, there's two phases to the update to the tree ordinance. This is phase one. The problem we have is we don't know exactly what's going to be coming in phase two. This ordinance makes substantial changes to the definition of significant tree, tree stands, number of trees, that sort of thing. And without seeing the mitigation section on this, the review of the tree protection guidelines that's slated for phase two, we can't tell our members exactly how this will impact them. We would prefer to have this come through at one time so we can see the whole thing as it's happening and what impact it will have on development in the community. We sort of analogized this to a developer bringing a zone change to you. If the developer just brought the zone change and said, well, I'm not filing a development plan today, you'll see that in a few months. I think you'd probably tell them thanks, but we need to see that development plan to see what impact your zone change is going to have on the land. We feel the same way about this phase two of the ordinance, that we need to see phase two so we can tell exactly what impact that will have on our industry. So, as I said, we can't support this coming through in parts. we'd rather have it come through as a whole because then we have a complete picture see what we're dealing with thank you very much appreciate it thank you mr. Murphy are there other public comment go ahead and step forward state your name and each comment each person has three minutes good afternoon my name is Leandro Braga I try not to make too much of a habit of making public comments, but I've picked up the impression that maybe perhaps the majority of the time people are coming up here to admonish you in some sense, and I've been guilty of that in the past. Quite frankly, the city has considered and implemented some policies that I would charitably describe as frustrating, but this is not one of them. I really, I just want to underline for me personally, how much pleasure it gives me to come up here and speak in support of what the city is doing, how much pride it gives me as a Lexingtonian to see us looking at some amendments like what is being proposed here today. Obviously, this is not without controversy on some level, but I also really consider this to be just entry-level stuff, and as staff has explained, it is just phase one, right? So modernizing these standards, I really think, is table stakes for what it takes to be a successful city in the 21st century. So again, it's just wonderful that this is happening. In my professional career as an urban ecologist, I've been able to become pretty intimately familiar with the challenges of protecting and preserving urban and municipal trees, as well as sort of the morass of existing landscape ordinances and things that need to be updated. So I have the utmost respect for DES staff, for planning staff, Boyd, Eve, anyone who's had their hands on this, I think deserves, should be, I hope they are really proud of their work. And again, as a resident, I feel pride for what the city government is doing. And I think it's commendable that DES took such an active role in this. I hope to see a lot more of that in the future. I was going to leave it at that, but I can't help but notice that, maybe I'm being presumptuous, I don't know, but even before the room cleared out, maybe I'm like the only person under 40 here that isn't staff. I would never presume to speak for the youth or whatever, right? But tree protection, we talk about trees, we're implicitly, explicitly, we're talking about the future. We are saying there is going to be a future, Lexingtonians are going to live through that future, and we want the future to be better. We are asserting all of those things. And when you do that, you can actually look a young person in the eye and at the very least say, like, man, we tried. We're at least trying, right? So again, I think to say that the future is going to be worth living through, that makes me really happy. We really owe it to our descendants to be doing this work. So I'm really grateful for you and for everyone else who's taken it up. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional public comment? Okay, we'll go ahead and close that part of the meeting. We'll open it up. If, Daph, do you have any further comment at this time? Okay. Okay, do we have any further questions from any commission members? I have one question to the staff. Mr. Murphy has proposed that, well, to look at the whole plan as a project and not approve just a piece of it as such. How would you feel about approving the phase one and waiting for phase two to come and then going at that going at it that way that's a great question i would respond that environmental services and the division of planning has had numerous issues protecting tree canopy recently and this would allow environmental services to capture more trees in the development process for protection we also like i mentioned several times we see this as the first step and the foundation to greater policies we would like to see. But in the meantime, the creation of a mitigation program would take time and discussions with law and revenue and stakeholders. So while we are figuring out the means to create that program, we would love to have this in place to capture trees that we can protect now. But like I said, it's the first step to modernize our zoning ordinance and we look forward to continue working on. I'm a little slow, so you have to help me out. Does that mean yes or no? Maybe a bit of both. I'm sorry. Well, I guess the question is, in making a motion, the question becomes, do we approve everything that you've done here today and let it go with that? And then you all work through number two on your own and with the collaboration that you've had in the past, or do we formally do number one and then let number two? So the question is, what's your preference? Well, in my opinion, sir, I would love to see this ZODA move forward. I think it would give environmental services a lot more power and the ability to protect more tree canopy than they do now. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or do we have a motion? Ms. Worth? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN SOTA 2400005, Amendment to Articles 5, 18, and 26. Second. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Pohl. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote via Granicus. It passes unanimously. And thank you, and we're glad this brought you into the planning department. And that brings us to our next agenda item. Food forest. A tour of the food forest that he's doing for a single life, but I've heard him speak before. Which? We're on page six, about halfway down. Page six, the Shriners Hospital. Yes. So I have just been adding on to my presentation as we go. So that still says June 13th, so we're going to skip ahead to? You want it back? Graham wants to keep it. July. So as a recap, the last time we were together, we discussed a landscape plan for a location at 4085 Harrodsburg Road, and this was in an effort to mitigate mature trees that had been removed from the site. And this was the plan we discussed a month ago, four weeks ago, with the commission, and one that the commission was not ready to approve yet. This was a proposal to install 40 large trees to mitigate the removed canopy, and the Division of Environmental Services had asked for 83 large trees. As a commission asked that the applicant go back and reconsider some of the information and make another proposal. So that's what we have for you today. The applicant has updated their development plan and revised the landscape plan to provide the 83 trees. And it is color-coded and the color-coding can be seen on, I'm not going to try to read that because it's, I have my own copy here. The color coding can be broken down as follows. The blue trees are the large trees within the residential area that are proposed to meet Article 26 of the zoning ordinance, and that's related to tree protection and canopy requirements. The pink trees are shown on what is Syringa Drive, which is the cul-de-sac within the residential area, and those are required street trees. And then the green trees, which you can see in the commercial area, are the B3 zone part of the property, are large trees to meet the Article 18 requirements for landscaping and vehicular use areas. And so those all fall within the front part. And then lastly, the red trees are trees that are proposed for mitigation. So those are the 83 trees being shown in addition to what is currently required. And so they are scattered throughout both the residential and the commercial areas. And while they're graphically grouped in some areas, I think the intent is just to increase the buffering along their property lines, especially where maybe no trees would have been required, but now they're providing those in those particular areas. So in addition to what's shown here or what I just discussed, there is a little bit of tree protection area that's still identified on their landscaping plan where those trees won't be removed. In addition, the applicant met with the Division of Environmental Services, and they did prepare six notes that are shown here and also on the development plan to address the trees and how they will be reviewed and approved over the course of the next probably several years as the property develops. And as opposed to locating all of these trees on a development plan, the desire is to keep them on the landscape plan that is approved by the commission as a mitigation plan, but then allow for the Division of Environmental Services to have some leeway to adjust the locations of some of the trees and then hopefully identify the correct species needed in different locations to allow for those trees to grow and mature. So I hope that addresses everything that at least I'm aware of that happened over the last month. And I'd be happy to answer any questions, and I know the applicant is also present, as well as the Division of Environmental Services, to address any comments, questions, concerns. What we're asking is that the Planning Commission, and this is kind of a summary, so Vision Engineering is proposing 33 new large trees in the residential portion and 50 in the business portion. but what we're asking is for the planning commission to reapprove this development plan it is a final development plan with the additional two conditions at the bottom number 18 and 19 i believe at this point number 18 has been attempted to be addressed but we would just like to make sure that that remains on the development plan and there's no real changes between now and when it gets certified. And then the last thing is for the Planning Commission to acknowledge accepting the mitigation plan. So that would have to be part of the action today. Would you repeat the steps in the mitigation plan? Is that what you said? No, just that you would, as the Planning Commission, approve or accept the mitigation plan as presented. Which is... Just confirmation. has everybody who had input into this process signed off on what we're looking at? Okay. Have you signed off on what we're looking at? I'll sign it off. I'll come up and tell you. Yeah, Mr. Carter, go ahead. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. First of all, I'd like to say it's tough to follow that Zoda with this, but here we are. So I agree with all the conditions. I guess forever this tree exhibit will be associated with the development plan. So any amendments, we'll go back to the tree exhibit. It did offer us some flexibility that as we develop each lot, should there be a reason a tree needs to move, we can do that, but we're still accounting for the required trees. And just to summarize what Tracy said, if we did not have to do mitigation, we would be putting 223 trees on this property. Now after mitigation, we're putting 306. So we've provided 83 additional trees to make up for the 8,300 square feet of canopy that was removed. So with that, if you have any questions, I hope for your approval. Are there any questions for the applicant? If there are none, would you be able to put that slide up with the conditions recommended by staff? I don't see that in our packet or flyers, so if we could just have that in front of us when we make. Is there any questions or comments, or do we have a motion? Or I guess I should ask, is there a public comment on this? All right, do we have any commission comments or a motion? Mr. Chair, if everyone's ready, I can definitely make a motion. I would like to say I do appreciate it's obvious there's been collaboration with all parties involved since we last discussed this, and it's much appreciated. Very much so, so thank you. But with that, I'll move for re-approval of Plan MJDP 23-76, Schreiner's Hospital, Masonic Temple Association of Lexington Incorporated, amended, left us with, I think, the 17 original conditions with 18 and 19 being two additional conditions that was up on the screen just a moment ago. So, that's our motion. You could say and in addition to accept the mitigation plan as presented. And to accept the mitigation plan as approved by staff. We have a motion by Mr. Owens and a second by Mr. Wilson. And then please, any comments or questions, then please vote. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any comments, Mr. Duncan? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, a reminder that next week is Committee Week, August 1st, subdivision at 830, zoning at 130. Thank you all very much. All right. With no objection, we're adjourned. We're done, Bobby. Okay. Thank you.