# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - April 23, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · April 23, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/874 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/874?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-04-23 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 9,441 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on April 23, 2009, at 1:35 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting was presided over by Randall Vaughn and covered 6 agenda items spanning procedural matters, land use decisions, and informational updates. Over the course of the meeting, the Commission took 6 votes and heard 2 public comments. The substantive agenda included Land Subdivision Items, Zoning Items, and Commission Items, all of which were approved. The remaining agenda items — Call to Order, Postponements and Withdrawals, and Staff Items — were informational in nature and did not result in formal votes. ## Attendance The following members were recorded for the Commission meeting on April 23, 2009: **Present:** Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Neill Day, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Randall Vaughn, and Joan Whitman. **Absent:** Patrick Brewer, Carolyn Richardson, and Lynn Roche-Phillips. **Late arrivals:** Neill Day and Joan Whitman were both present at the meeting but arrived late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took six votes during the April 23, 2009 meeting, all of which passed unanimously by voice vote. - **MAR 2008-23** [timestamp: 0:01]: On a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Mike Owens, the Commission voted 6–0 to indefinitely postpone the Thomas & Corbett LLC zoning map amendment and development plan. Voting in favor: Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Randall Vaughn. - **MAR 2009-5** [timestamp: 0:03]: On a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Mike Owens, the Commission voted 6–0 to indefinitely postpone the Joe Moore zoning map amendment and development plan. Voting in favor: Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Randall Vaughn. - **ZOTA 2009-1** [timestamp: 0:05]: On a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Frank Penn, the Commission voted 6–0 to postpone for one month the proposed amendment to Article 9 relating to group residential projects. Voting in favor: Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Randall Vaughn. - **DP 2009-13** [timestamp: 0:25]: On a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Mike Cravens, the Commission voted 8–0 to approve the Brookhaven Plaza development plan amendment, with the condition that the proposed parallel parking space on lot 2 be relocated to the proposed landscape island area. Voting in favor: Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Neill Day, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Randall Vaughn, and Joan Whitman. - **ZOTA 2009-4** [timestamp: 0:38]: On a motion by Marie Copeland, seconded by Mike Cravens, the Commission voted 8–0 to approve a zoning ordinance text amendment to Article 6. Voting in favor: Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Neill Day, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Randall Vaughn, and Joan Whitman. - **Public Facility Reviews** [timestamp: 0:56]: On a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Mike Owens, the Commission voted 8–0 to approve public facility reviews for renovations at Russell Cave Elementary, Bryan Station Middle, and Leestown Middle School. Voting in favor: Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Neill Day, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Randall Vaughn, and Joan Whitman. ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period, both speaking to the Brookhaven Plaza development plan. - **Sam Carneal** [timestamp: 19:46] raised concerns about a 30-year-old easement that was not reflected on the development plans for Lot 4. Carneal's comments highlighted a potential discrepancy between the existing easement and what had been submitted as part of the Brookhaven Plaza plans. - **Steve Wilson** [timestamp: 23:02] followed with remarks on the same topic, offering an explanation for why the easement had been overlooked in previous plans. Wilson noted that the easement was not properly indexed, which accounted for its absence from earlier documentation related to the development. Together, the comments drew the Commission's attention to a longstanding easement that may have implications for the Brookhaven Plaza development plan, particularly with respect to Lot 4. ## Call to Order [timestamp: 00:01] The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randall Vaughn. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:37] The Commission took up Agenda Item II, addressing requests for postponements and withdrawals. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting included Randall Vaughn, Rory Kaley, and Ms. Wade. The discussion covered requests for indefinite postponements on two matters: - **Thomas & Corbett LLC** – A zoning map amendment for which an indefinite postponement was requested. - **Joe Moore** – A zoning map amendment similarly subject to a request for indefinite postponement. The outcome of this agenda item was informational in nature, with the Commission considering the postponement requests as presented. No additional details regarding specific concerns raised or debate among commissioners are reflected in the available record. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 07:02] The Commission took up Agenda Item III, Land Subdivision Items, which centered on a proposed amendment to the Brookhaven Plaza development plan, with discussion focusing on parking and access issues related to the project. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting were **Tom Martin** and **Jason Banks**, who addressed the Commission on the details of the amendment. The discussion examined the specifics of the Brookhaven Plaza plan as it related to parking configuration and site access, though the precise points of contention and the full scope of each speaker's remarks are reflected in the meeting record. The Commission ultimately **approved** the Brookhaven Plaza development plan amendment following the discussion. ## Zoning Items [timestamp: 27:19] The Commission took up Agenda Item IV, a discussion and consideration of proposed zoning ordinance text amendments. The central focus of the item was a proposal to expand the Planning Commission's authority under the zoning ordinance. Bill Sallee was the key speaker presenting on this item. The discussion centered on the text amendments being considered and their implications for the Commission's role and jurisdiction. The item was approved by the Commission. ## Commission Items [timestamp: 39:10] The Commission took up Agenda Item V, Commission Items, which focused on public facility reviews for proposed renovations at three Lexington-area schools. Barbara Rackers presented the item, which covered renovation projects at the following facilities: - **Russell Cave Elementary School** - **Bryan Station Middle School** - **Leestown Middle School** The reviews were conducted as part of the standard public facility review process, which requires the Commission to evaluate proposed changes to public facilities for consistency with applicable plans and regulations. The Commission approved the public facility reviews for all three school renovation projects. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 56:46] Under Agenda Item VI, staff provided the Commission with updates on planning services and upcoming public hearings. Chris King was the primary speaker during this portion of the meeting. King presented informational updates to the Commission regarding current planning activities. This agenda item was discussion-based and intended to keep Commissioners informed of ongoing and forthcoming matters within the planning department's purview. No formal action was taken on this item, as it was informational in nature. --- ## Decisions - **MAR 2008-23** — postponed (6-0): Indefinite postponement of Thomas & Corbett LLC zoning map amendment and development plan - **MAR 2009-5** — postponed (6-0): Indefinite postponement of Joe Moore zoning map amendment and development plan - **ZOTA 2009-1** — postponed (6-0): One-month postponement of amendment to Article 9 for group residential projects - **DP 2009-13** — passed (8-0): Approval of Brookhaven Plaza development plan amendment - **ZOTA 2009-4** — passed (8-0): Approval of zoning ordinance text amendment to Article 6 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of public facility reviews for Russell Cave Elementary, Bryan Station Middle, and Leestown Middle School renovations --- ## Full transcript 2009. Let's see. Okay. Mm-hmm. I guess I, I -- I'm sorry, excuse me. Those minutes are to be, uh, are scheduled for approval at May four-- the May 14th meeting. So, at this time, we'll, uh, ask if there are any, um, postponements or withdrawals. Postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, Member's Planning Commission, uh, Rory Kaley, on page two, item one, it's the Thomas & Corbett LLC, as, zone map and the associated, uh, development plans, ZDP 2008-109, Reserve at Tates Creek, request a- an indefinite postponement. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for an indefinite postponement for MAR 2008-23, Thomas & Corbett LLC. This is for property located at 1060 through 1097 Bridlewood Lane, 5200 through 5205 Tikes Pass, 5121 Middleton Place, and 5397 Tates Creek Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for indefinite postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion for indefinite postponement of that as well as, uh, the zoning development plan. Mr. Chairman, uh, move indefinite postponement MAR 2008-23. And the zoning development plan? And, and the zoning development plan also. Second. We have a motion and a second for an indefinite postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman Vaughan? Yes? The staff, I would like to ask for a postponement to an item on your agenda as well. Page three, item number two, under the map amendment requests, the applicant is Joe Moore for MAR 2009-5, and associated with that is the ZDP 2009-25 for Family Center, Unit 1B Lot 9. The staff has been notified by the, uh, property owner that they would like to rescind their permission for this zone change request, so the applicant, or the application would not be able to be heard by the planning commission without that permission. At this point, the staff would request an indefinite postponement. The applicant does believe that it's a possibility that that would be corrected, uh, in the near future, and they could move ahead with a public hearing and we could reschedule at that time. Thank you, Ms. White. Was that, uh, was that via telephone, written, uh, correspondence, or email? That's a written correspondence that Chris, Mr. Taylor just handed out to you and- Oh, okay, thank you. ... appears here at your- All right. ... should be at your place settings, and the staff did notify the applicant when we received that. It's the second page of- Okay. ... received that letter. Thank you very much. We have a request for an indefinite postponement for MAR 2009-5, Joe Moore. This is for property located at, uh, 2001 Family Circle. Um, commission members, you have before you the, uh, correspondence where that was, re- request was made, um, for this particular application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to, uh, speak to this request for an indefinite postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. M-Mr. Chairman, I move for an indefinite postponement of MAR 2009-5 and the subsequent development plan ZDP 2009-25, indefinite postponement. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Chairman Vaughan, I would also like to ask for one other item to be postponed. Um, ZOTA 2009-1, the amendment to article nine for group residential projects. The staff believes that we'll be prepared at the May 28th public hearing to do a full presentation, and we would like to re-notify the neighborhood associations of, um, the changed language of that. So, we'd ask for a one-month postponement. And this is, uh, an application that our, the planning commission initiated. Thank you, Ms. White. And, and that is the, uh, uh, one month is- It's on page three. And that's May 28th? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Um, we have a request for, um, uh, this one month postponement of ZOTA 2009-1, uh, to amend article nine, group residential projects. Um, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a one-month postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for, uh, postponement of ZOTA 2009-1 for one month until May 28th. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, um, I guess at this time we'll give staff, uh, a moment to, uh, set up for our next, our first presentation. I guess we'll go back to the beginning of the meeting and pick this up from there. Well, it says, it says right there, so... May 14th. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page one of your agenda under Land Subdivision Items, item A, you have DP2009-13 Brookhaven Plaza, Lots 1, 2, and 4 Amended. This was a plan that was postponed at your last hearing, your subdivision hearing, to be heard by you today. The property in question. I'm not getting any power. Why? Get the power on. Thank you. The property in question is on Nicholasville Road. Pasadena is to the north. We have Dennis Drive, and then we come to the area of this property just past Dennis Drive. Across the street is the Rally's and the A & W and those developments. McDonald's is right up here, uh, again, next to this development, Brookhaven Plaza. The development plan in total has about 28,000 plus square feet of buildable area. You can see the internal circulation reflected here. This is the area of amendment that's before you today. This is a 6,000 plus square foot building with associated parking. It is currently occupied by Papa John's Pizza. They have approximately 2,400 square feet of the building. The applicant is putting a ... is renovating a portion of this building for a hamburger, sit-down hamburger restaurant, and they are revising the parking in this area. Here we have the original, or not original but the currently approved development plan. You can see, again, the only physical changes being proposed is in this area with the realignment of the parking. There's no change, again, to the square footage. And here, again, just to explain to you and help you see the overall area, this property has been allotted off, and here we have Lot 4, yellow, which is a flag lot, something, of course, now, we discourage, and here's Lot 1 and Lot 2, subject of your amendment. In between, in the green, are areas that were ... started out as one lot, subsequently divided several times into this lotting pattern, which you can see fairly clearly is reflected on your development plan. The plan was submitted, presented and reviewed by staff and technical, and then your Subdivision Committee, and you can see that your Subdivision Committee had recommended referral to the full body. The purpose is that when this was originally submitted, and you can see your conditions, your 12, the first 12 conditions are very standard conditions on a plan. A lot of cleanup conditions, clarification, issues that we want to be sure we were comfortable with and the applicant was comfortable with because of the reciprocal parking and access that are so important to this development. It is Article 13 that is ... pardon me, not article but Condition 13, that was the purpose for your recommendation of referral. And I have a ... Uh, if you would place the ... Oh, the picture's not up? I po- I apologize. I should have told you. Uh, I wanted you to see the picture of the development, but now you can go to the second one, please, Barb. There we go. That reflects the original submission of which this is a new submission. It was the original submission, and you can see if you look up there in the access road, in this area, through here, they showed a change in the parking. Now, staff was aware that field conditions did not reflect this situation, so that raised questions in our mind about those items you see in Condition 13, which is parking, access, solid waste, uh, service. Well, that was the reason we had that 13th condition. This plan has subsequently, before you, has been modified. Lot 4, the flag lot, is no longer a part of this amendment. It is strictly Lots 1 and 2. Well, that ... It was that progression that got us to where we are today. Staff is comfortable with recommending to you approval of this plan, subject to the 12 conditions you see and a 13th condition- That again, I'm gonna show you on the plan, which is to move a parking space and this would substitute for your current 13, which we believe is no longer necessary since, again, lot 4 is no longer a part of this plan, and that is... They have a parking space right here and that seems a little awkward to us. It... Ms. Copeland, I see it's, it, it is difficult to locate and it is there and we have recommended that they move it to this area, the landscape aisle, and just create a nice bank of parking. Oh, and this just seems unnecessary, in the way, uh, potential conflicts, et cetera. So that's, uh, what we're asking them to do with our condition number 13. And I would point out, again, the title of your plan makes a reference to Brookhaven Plaza, lots 1, 2, and 4. Lot 4 is no longer a part of this amendment. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. So, um, okay, so in your... On the agenda, it's just w- I- it's just lot 1 and 2- Yes, sir. ... for the purposes of this agenda. Okay, thank you. Uh, are there any questions for Tom? Uh, Ms. Copeland? Yes. Is 1 and 2 owned by the same people? It is my understanding that they are, yes, ma'am, and that's, uh, why they are... One person can sign this plan. They would have to be the owner of lots 1 and 2. They have always functioned in conjunction with each other, as you can see on the original plan as well. Where are they picking up the Dempster dumpster? It is currently located in this area. And that was, that was okay with technical? It is okay. I believe they are having some conversations about... The sighting could be better and that will be handled through their sign-off. So why was the parking turned around to be parallel to Nicholasville Road? The applicant would have have to address that, Ms. Copeland. They, they wanted to adjust it and revise it and that's why they brought it before you. I believe, again, it's probably in conjunction with the changes that were originally proposed on lot 4, which have subsequently been removed. Okay. Now, you've got a green buffer area that goes into lot 4, it looks like to me. And those graphics really are nice, whoever did the graphics. It's a vast improvement 'cause it just jumps. But the green buffer, right there where you had your finger, looks like that extends into lot 1. This area may indeed extend a little bit into lot 4. So did mister, mister lot 4 approve that? It would not be anything without his signature and participation. That would not be, uh, done without his signature. Let's put up the photograph again. That may help show you what's on the ground. It's so dark, I, uh... I believe some of that e- exists on the ground, Ms. Copeland, and we would also point to, uh, condition 11 where I scream to clarify the interior landscape areas. So we, we share your concern about them being absolutely clear about those. Well, I'm wondering if w- w... the 1 and 2 lot is trying to use that green zone as part of their buffer. And- Well, there's not a- ... that looks- Ma'am, there's not a buffer required per se, because they're zoned the same. It is vehicular use area- Okay. ... in landscaping that is required. So, so you don't need a certain amount of vegetation in there? You just have a- Well, they do, they do as a part of their vehicular use area plantings in their landscaping requirements, but not, not a landscape buffer in the general, uh, way we use the term between properties or, or between land uses. I, I get that, but I'm, I'm just wondering if... Don't count that as their part of their green space. I think- Thank you. Are there any other question? Uh, Mr. Cravens, I think you had a question. I, I'm not sure she asked my question, but form of it, I think, but, uh, did you, did you say why they reversed the, the parking, the angled parking? They would have to address their- Okay. ... absolute motivation for that. Okay. Well, we'll, we'll call the petitioner forward but first, well, any other questions for Tom? Yes. Mr. Owens? Uh, Tom, clarify for me. On, on the agenda here, you've got 13 conditions. Are we... Did we drop this 13 and add- Yes, sir. ... a new one? Okay. Yes, sir. W- because- He dropped- Because lot 4 got dropped? Exactly. Okay. Yes, sir. All right, thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Tom? Thank you, sir. Thanks. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Jason Banks. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, I'm with Eagle Engineering and, uh, you want me to address your concern, Mr. Craven, first? Uh, Jason, if you can grab the mic there for us, sir. Thank you. Basically, the reason for the changing of the, of the flow is the request of five guys, who is the sit-down restaurant that's coming in. They felt it would be a nicer circulation pattern for them. So, it was basically flipped opposite at one point. Traffic was headed north on this way. Now, they've flipped it, so that it can come in like that. They felt like it would be nicer for their, their restaurant. As far as the rest of the staff's comments, uh, we're in agreement and have no problem, um, accepting them. Uh, I don't have anything else. I think Tom per- did a pretty good job, unless you guys have any other questions. Thank you, Jason. Um, with regards to condition 13, you're okay with 13 as modified? Okay. Are there any other questions for, uh, for Mr. Banks at this time from the commission? Okay, thank you. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to, uh, speak to this application? Yes, sir, if you could come forward. Mr. Chairman, commission members, I'm Sam Carneal, and I represent the, uh, adjoining property owners. And, uh, I just wanted to say, we don't have any opinion about the development plan as it was revised. It's my understanding that that revision came in today. I looked at it this morning, um, but I would like to go on record as saying that there are some issues if lot four is involved. Um, there's an omitted recorded easement that's 30 years old that's never been reflected on any of the development plans in the past. Uh, it's certainly not reflected on the field, which posed some of the original questions, which, which brought that number 13 here, so... To the extent that there's any, we want to be on record, as to the extent there's any changes on lot four, we would have an objection, but with lot four removed, we are of no opinion on, on this development. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carneal. I think, uh, Mr. Penn has a question for you. Let me ask you a question in response to, um- Yes, sir. ... Ms. Copeland's question. Then, what you're saying is there's no, uh, part of that lot that's being re- requested for change that, that comes over on lot four, in your opinion? Uh, like I said, I just took a cursory, cursory look at the development plan that was filed today. It appears to show... O- Our area of concern, it's the AutoSound building that is located, uh, on next door, the three garage door bays to access our property and the front door. The building was built on the property line. Uh, there's a, a 20-foot access easement that was purchased by the owner of the property in 1979. To the extent that this plan solely reflects what the previous approved plan was, we, we don't have an opinion. Uh, we're gon- we're working with the owner of lot four, we're attempting to work with the owner, and potentially, the, uh, Division of Law here to address what happens in a situation where a recorded easement and property rights were not reflected on development plans historically. It's a 30-year-old easement. It's unfortunately not shown in any previous development plan that has happened since that easement was granted, so there's a bit of a dispute there, but to the extent that they have withdrawn lot four from consideration, that, that gives us a chance to work with the property owner. It's, it's not at issue right now. They aren't making any moves to change what's on the ground. I- If they, if there's an attempt or a movement to change what's on the ground, th- there's gonna be an issue, but as far as, as far as this commission is concerned, they aren't making any motion to make any, any change to the previously recorded plat, which is our contention was, was produced in error in the '90s. So, thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for Mr. Carneal? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to, uh, speak to this application? Yes, sir. Chairman, uh, members of the planning commission, I represent, uh, the owner of lot four. I just wanted to note that the easement that he was speaking of, uh, was never properly indexed in the grantor index, which is, which might explain why it was never recorded. I'm not saying that that was right or wrong. I'm just pointing out to you, for your information, that that was probably why it was missed, and why all the owners in the Brookhaven Developments would have missed it as well. Only the owner of the AutoSound lot would have been able to find it in a title search of his property, because it is recorded in the grantee index. Th- That's all I have to say. Thank you. Can I get your name please? Yes, it's Steve Wilson. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Any questions for Mr. Wilson from the commission? Thank you, sir. Okay, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to, um, speak to this application? Okay. Staff, do you have anything additional you'd like to add? Okay. No, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Banks, do you have anything else you'd like to add? Okay, thank you. Um, we have, uh, subdivision committee had, uh, recommended referral to the full commission. Um, we do have, um, 12, 13 conditions, a modified 13th condition that was on the overhead earlier, uh, to relocate a proposed parallel parking space. Um, at this time, I'll ask the commission if there's any further, uh, discussion, questions, and/or comments. Mr. Penn? Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a motion? Yes, Ms. Copeland, you have a question? Has traffic engineering looked at this, uh, h- h- how you leave this lot? ... as they have a chance to review this, traffic engineering, Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am, they have received a copy of the plan and technical committee did review this. Yes, ma'am. So they know that they're gonna leave the lot at a 45-degree angle to Nicholasville Road. Yes, ma'am, and they will be required to sign off on the plan. Okay. Okay. I, I, I believe that's correct. There's still a sign-off, uh, item number two on traffic engineering's approval as part of condition, item number two. Any other questions, comments, motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP2009-13, with 12 conditions and adding 13 as modified and showed on the overhead. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve, uh, subject to the- Um- ... 13 conditions of... I'm sorry. Could we be sure to indicate that that's with the title as amended to delete lot four? Mr. Penn? Yes. And, and noting that Brookhaven lots one and two and four has been o- omitted. Uh, I think, I think the clarification is lot four has been omitted. Yeah. Both on the agenda as well as on this, this piece here. Okay. We have a motion and a second for approval with a, a clarification that lot four has been omitted, uh, from this application. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. I. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Salih. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the commission, good afternoon. The one remaining zoning item on your agenda appears at the top of page four. This is item number two, ZOTA 2009-4. This is a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to article six, to expand the Planning Commission's authority to review variances and conditional uses at the time of considering a zone change on a piece of property. This is a text amendment that was initiated by the Planning Commission a few months ago, and the text change actually, uh, is very simple in its scope. It proposes to eliminate one phrase that currently exists in this section. That phrase, uh, limits the Planning Commission's ability to review conditional use permit applications and dimensional variance requests only at the time of rezoning of a property that is in your defined infill and redevelopment area. The infill and redevelopment area is approximately 10 square miles of the 83-square-mile urban service area, and it's centered generally on the downtown area. We have a map out of the comprehensive plan of the defined infill and redevelopment for you to look at. This proposed text change would allow you to consider these types of applications on any zoning map amendment request. This, uh, provision, uh, is based in the state law that governs all planning commissions in the state. This is a section of the KRS100 that was added a little over 10 years ago, uh, and has been done by some planning commissions across the state. However, the planning commission here w- was somewhat reluctant in the early years to, uh, allow this procedure here locally. In the early part of this decade, when the Planning Commission first adopted, uh, the first set of text amendments to encourage infill and redevelopment, uh, provisions in our zoning ordinance, this Section 6-4C was added to the zoning ordinance to allow the commission to consider these types of applications just in this 10 square, square mile area. The basis for this text amendment that's before you today comes from recommendations from a group called Management Partners, which looked at the operations of the Division of Planning and all other urban county government divisions. One of their recommendations, uh, in, uh, a number of recommendations made throughout the urban county government, was to expand the Planning Commission's authority in reviewing these types of applications throughout the entire urban service area. So that, in essence, is the genesis of this proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission on some 20 occasions has reviewed these types of applications in the infill and redevelopment area over the past five years. In all but one circumstance, these have been dimensional variance requests. Only one time has an applicant asked that you also consider a conditional use application, uh, and that was done in 2005. That, uh, according to the staff's research, accounts for about 30% of the total number of zone changes that have been filed in this infill and redevelopment area since this provision of the ordinance was put into place. The staff believes that's probably as good an estimate as any. ...uh, as to the number of your total applications that might ask either for dimensional variances, uh, or for conditional use permits, uh, if this change is made, uh, as it's been recommended by Management Partners. The rationale really for making this change is that it can somewhat significantly reduce the amount of time that an applicant would have in having their total development, uh, package or, or proposal reviewed and approved. Uh, currently, an applicant cannot go to the Board of Adjustment until after a rezoning is finalized. Uh, and so that amount of time that would follow a successful rezoning can be saved through the current process that we have without, uh, any sacrifice to notification to both area property owners and the registered neighborhood associations. That is already part of the requirements for considering conditional uses and dimensional variances in the infill and redevelopment area. The staff, uh, yesterday forwarded to you electronically and by fax, uh, a supplemental staff report. Uh, and over the next half hour, I'd like to go through each of these with you and cover this, this bit of information. Uh, but judging by the looks on your face, I think I'll forego that and just summarize instead- ...the, uh, staff exhibit that we handed out. There were several issues discussed at your zoning committee meeting. Uh, but one I would like to touch on is the notice requirement. Um, we have four different, uh, examples here for you. The first is, uh, one marked with a blue arrow that shows how we identify these types of applications in your legal ad. There is a change to the code wording, and we do identify the public and the newspaper that dimensional variances, or in the rare case of a conditional use, is also part of the application. Um, more importantly, on the back of that sheet, when we have a pre-application conference with an applicant, we give them this form, and this shows them how the notice is to be prepared when they wish to add a conditional use or dimensional variance to their application. We spell that out in the area that's boxed, and we ask them to be specific in the letter to the property owners in the individual area as to what is being requested so they have a full understanding, uh, of the type of application that, that has been filed with the Division of Planning. The last two pages just is an example of one that was sent, just so you get an idea of, of how that would read, what, uh, a property owner would receive, and the type of information that, uh, is expected and also done in the mailed notice that's sent to area property owners. As you also know, we notify, as a, a general rule, the nearest neighborhood association. They're given very similar information to this, including copies of the actual application and the justification letter where they're requesting their dimensional variance or conditional use permit. At the conclusion of the zoning committee's meeting three weeks ago today, uh, they forwarded a recommendation on to the Planning Commission for approval of this text amendment. Uh, at that same meeting, the planning staff recommended approval of the text amendment for the two reasons that appear on our original staff report and also on your agenda this afternoon. Those are firstly, the rationale for allowing the commission to review more of these types of applications is that it can be a substantial time saver to applicants on a tight timeline for a particular project, uh, without bypassing any public involvement or notice about these types of applications. Secondly, uh, state law does empower the Planning Commission to hear these types of applications, uh, if proper notice, uh, is given to area property owners. That concludes my prepared remarks. At this point, I'd be glad to answer any questions about our report to you or our recommendation, uh, or the supplemental report that we gave to you yesterday and that is also in your notebook. Thank you, Mr. Solley. Uh, any questions for Bill? I, I guess, uh, at the committee meeting, uh, I guess the one question I had, it does appear that the text with regards to the, uh, zoning variance is in bold type in that letter- Mm-hmm. ... and I guess on the back page of our handout? Yes. Under item... I guess under the paragraph, it does, in this example we have, it indicates item A and B being in bold print that requests- Mm-hmm. ... what that particular variance is. Okay. If you wish, we can even modify the example that we give, which is the second page of the handout, to insist that that information be in bold type. As you can tell by the ordinary kind of map amendment letter, most of the information is bolded. We certainly can do that and make emphasis of that, uh, when folks come to our office to seek these kinds of applications. Okay. I, I think that's a good, good suggestion. Any other questions for, for Bill at the moment? I, I just have one question. I guess in thinking through the process, it could be where we could deny the dimensional variance and conditional use and still approve the zone change. Absolutely. You don't... You can vote... You'd have to vote up or down on the entire thing. You can do... So you still have that option to do that? Yes, the commission does. Uh, the planning staff even has recommended on occasion, um, approval of a rezoning, disapproval of one or more variances, um, and I believe approval of the development plan. So we review them and provide you reports independently of all the issues just for those types of occurrences. Thank you. Mr. Penn? Bill, just thinking through it, and this is off the top of my head, and that's dangerous. But if we should deny the, the, the variance and prove the zone change, what is their, applicant's, uh, next step? What, what could they do to appeal that? ... the, um, provision of state law does allow them to appeal a-any decision of yours to the circuit court. Right. From talking with the law department, our understanding is that they would have to do that within 30 days of your decision. Um, like, uh, similarly as if the Board of Adjustment were to deny a conditional use permit or variance, an applicant would have a one-year waiting period before they could reapply. Um, and if they did not challenge your decision through the courts, we believe that they would also have to wait a year before they could make a similar application to the Board of Adjustment. So it's district court or wait a year? I think it's circuit court- Circuit court- ... or wait a year. ... or wait a year. Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions for, for Bill? Okay. I see a number of folks in the audience. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to, um ... Thank you, Bill. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to, uh, speak to this, uh, text amendment that we have before us? Okay. Any other, um ... Thank you. Any other questions, comments from commission? The zoning committee has recommended approval, um, and have provided, uh, the reasons for, for that approval, uh, along with staff's recommendation for that approval. Chair will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve, um, zoning text Amendment 2009-4 with the following two reasons as identified. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve ZLTA 2009-4. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Ackers? Good afternoon. We have three public facility reviews today, and they're all for the Fayette County Public School System, and they're all for renovation or expansion of the school, uh, individual schools. They're all listed on page four of your agenda under commission items. First one is PFR 2009-3. It's item A, and it's behind tab five in your notebook. It's for Russell Cave Elementary School. And the property is located at 3375 Russell Cave Road, just beyond Ironworks Pike. Property is right there. Huffman Mill Road is up here, Russell Cave and Ironworks Pike. The property is zoned AR, and it's surrounded by agricultural zoning and agricultural uses. It's about five acres in size, and the building that is on the property is a little bit less than 37,000 square feet. And Bill, if you could put that, put that up please. They're proposing to renovate 35,000 square feet of the existing school. They're gonna demolish about 1,700 square feet and then add maybe 4,900 to 4,950 square feet. The area in gray right there, I assume that the, um, demolition will be right about in this area, and then they're gonna add this, this area right here to the existing school. The 2007 comp plan recommends CARL, which is Core Agricultural and Rural Land Use, and that is recognizing its, its location within the rural service area. That's defined as the primary category for rural land associated with agriculture, and, um, it's characterized by its predominance of use for agriculture. The rural service area land management plan states that, um, the policy emphasis for land in this category should be for preservation and enhancement of the land for agricultural purposes in order to ensure the continued viability of the local agricultural economy. And this one is recommended for CARL as opposed to public education like the ones within the rural, or the, within the urban service area. And that is because they want the school to continue in as much as possible, as long as the school system wants to keep the property. But if the school should decide it should be surplus property, then they don't want it to be, um, turned into condominiums, or apartments, or whatever. It should go back to agricultural land use. We reviewed the 2007 comp plan to determine this project and the other two projects' compliance with the comp plan, and that's required by KRS 100. And there is nothing in the comp plan that is in opposition to any of these three. And the text of the compreh- or the comprehensive plan, the community facilities chapter also supports this. There are four goals and 12 objectives as part of this one that are in support of this, and those are listed on page two and the top of page three of your staff report. The school, a-all three of the schools, have been in their individual locations for several years, and ongoing discussion has been going on for several months with regard to renovation and expansion of these schools. Um, in fact, the, in the comp plan, it mentioned the renovation and expansion of these three schools, as well as Cassidy Elementary because of the condition of the schools was described as poor to fair. So this was part of the future plans of the public school system. They're ready to start construction, and they have to have a public facility review in order to, uh, even apply for a permit for construction or demolition. The scope of the project for this one includes a renovation of the kitchen area, and that will include replacement of the equipment, replacement of the mechanical system, and upgrade of the electrical and fire protection systems, and upgrade of the sanitary system that's on septic rather than on sanitary sewer because it is in the AR zone. And then there are also side improvements and paving they're gonna do. The work is proposed to be done in four principle phases. And probably starting in June of this year, and then it'll extend till November of 2010. And then it'll be occupied throughout the process. The text of the comprehensive plan states that the chief concern of the Fayette County Public Schools Planning Committee is to provide safe, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing state-of-the-art facilities for their students. And one of the goals is to develop the school system into a world-class school system by the year 2020. So as part of this goal, part of their plans, um, were to construct three new elementary schools in the northern half of the county, and that's been done. They're up and running. One was in Masterson Station, one's Liberty Road, and one is the, the community school in Bluegrass/Aspendale. Those were completed in 2008, and they are occupied now. In addition to the new construction, they had the plans, as I said, to renovate and, um, expand four of their schools, two elementary and two middle schools. And Cassidy's School was one of those, and we had the public facility review for that one at the end of last month. And then we've got this one, which is Russell Cave, and then there's Leestown Middle and Bryan Station Middle Schools. Um, complete renovation is necessary of these schools because of the condition, and we have recommended approval of all of them, but specifically on this one. This one is a little bit more detailed than the others because it's in a rural, rural area. The land use element of the plan recommends that the property be used for core agricultural and rural land purposes, recognizing its location within the rural service area where a school for academic instruction is permitted as a conditional use in the AR zone. And if the public school system were not exempt from the requirements of the zoning ordinance, approval from the Board of Adjustment would be required to expand the school, implying that the zoning ordinance recognizes the validity and value of providing schools for academic instruction in the rural service area, as well as in the urbanized portions of the county. The text of the comprehensive plan, the Community Facilities chapter supports this, and several goals and objectives also support this. So even though the land use element doesn't recommend the property for public education as generally it does for other schools, um, the request can be found to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. So we recommend approval of this with one condition, that they obtain any applicable permits before demolition, before construction, before remodeling from the D- Division of Building Inspection. That's it for this one. Maureen Peters is here from Pearson and Peters Arch- Architecture to answer any questions if you have any specific questions about the property. Thank you, Ms. Rikers. Are there any questions for Barb and/or petitioner, petitioner's here to represent Fayette County Schools. Yeah, I've got a question. Mr. Penn? Yeah, for Barb or... I- I'd, I'd assume it's the representative of the schools. Ms. Peters. Yes, ma'am. Good morning. This, uh, Russell Cave School is in the area where I live. My kids went there, um. My concern would be if you change the building, the footprint of the building, will you also be aware of the fact that there's horse farms to the back of you and to the side of you, and that the same type or better, uh, fencing would be available to, uh, to, to ensure the protection of the children in regard to the horses? Well, at this point, as Barb mentioned, because the existing school is on a septic system, we are not actually looking to expand the school in any way. The only reason that we removed the one portion of the library building is because it was not accessible, um, with the rest of the facility, as well as there were a couple of spaces in the lower level in the basement where we had some limited ceiling height. So we were really only trying to replace, um, existing spaces that they have. The rest of the site will actually be unchanged. There's no changes in the parking, um, no changes, um, with anything regarding the exterior of the building. What about the loading dock on the backside of it? There is no changes- No, no change in the loading dock either. Ah, we are, we are so limited. Uh, uh, really, the, the renovation of Russell Cave is just to really do a mechanical/electrical renovation. We will, will replace all of the finishes, windows, um, do some exterior restoration, but, but really, this one we weren't looking to really expand and modify, again, because we're, we're so tight with the existing site that we have. If, if- So there's no expansion of parking, no changes to the playground- Okay. ... other than we are reducing the basketball court in order to keep the amount of impervious area on the site balanced. Right. Okay. It, it's, it's a wonderful school and serves our community well. It's just that there are issues there when you have the, the type of- Yes. ... adjoining neighbors. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you very much. Are there any other, any other questions? Thank you. Hey, the next one is item D, PFR2009-4, and it's Bryan Station Traditional Magnet Middle School. And this property is located at 1865 Wickland Drive. It's just off of Easton Road, and it's west of Bryan Station Road. Easton is right along here. Bryan Station is down in this area. Here is Wickland, which provides access to the property. The property is R1B, and it's surrounded by residential zoning and use. It shares a site with Bryan Station High School. The entire property is about 40 acres in size, and the middle school portion of it is about three and a half acres. And the building is about 97,000 square feet, and they're adding around 18,000 square feet. And Bill, if you could put the site plan up there please. Thank you. The dark areas are where they're doing the renovations and the expansion. The parking is existing already. Um, they're relocating some based on... ... this area right here, parking was in here, so they're relocating that up in this area, and then this parking was traditional parking, and they're making that into handicapped spaces. And so there's no, no change in the number of parking spaces. It's just, uh, reworking and relocation. They're also proposing to completely renovate the school. There will be some demolition, and then they're renovating interior spaces. They're gonna add classrooms, a band room, a locker room, and administrative space. And then site work will consist of bleachers, utilities, relocation and the reworked parking, and then additional paving and sanitary sewer work. The comp plan recommends this property for public education, and that recognizes its use as a public school site and then the desire for it to remain so. And again, the discussion about renovation and expansion of this school has been ongoing for several months, and that was mentioned in the text of the comp plan as part of their, a part of their overall future plan. The work on this one will be also in four phases, starting in June of this year, and it'll go to November of 2010. And this one has five goals and 15 objectives and text of the comprehensive plan in the community facilities section that, um, are in support of this. There is nothing in opposition, and we've recommended approval of this one based on that and because it is in agreement with the land use element of the plan. And the same condition applies if they obtain any permits from building inspection before they do any demolition or construction or remodeling. And if you have any questions about this one, Mr. Tony Thomas is here. He's the architect of this school. Thank you, Barb. Are there any questions for, uh, for Barb or Mr. Thomas? I, I did have one question- Mm-hmm. ... uh, with regards to storm, storm water. Uh-huh. I know that, uh, there was, uh, a plan in recent years, uh, maybe two years ago, we saw in general vicinity of that, and I know we had some neighbors that had presented photos and evidence, and I don't know if... It looks as though we're adding new impervious area? There's new area, but some of it is, um, where parking was, so it's not... They're adding more roof area, but they're not necessarily adding a lot of impervious area. Okay. Okay. All right. But I don't know. Mr. Thomas can possibly answer that- Okay. ... for you. Could you? Thank you. Thank you. Tommy Thomas. As Barb mentioned, uh, there's a lot of demolition of existing space, but being replaced similar to Russell Cave, um, some of the parking space that exists will be replaced, but of course, we're getting rid of some, rid of some impervious area as well. Um, I just talked to the civil engineers, and I wish I would have brought him along with me. Um, there is an increase of two pers- What it all boils down to is an increase of 2% of the post runoff. And to accommodate for that, as I understand it, they have installed, um, a larger pipeline running along the Sierra Drive side of the property, and then putting in a water quality unit, which is something new to me, and that this, of course, have been run through LF- the engineering of LFUCG, um, which catches water in a deep catch basin, slows down the rate, catches the sediment before it discharges it. They also discussed with me that evidently maybe they were aware that evidently Sierra Drive has had a lot of potential problems, and that this is a separate drainage issue. This starts at the high school, drains through the middle school sites, and actually ends up in a pond out on Bryan Station Road and is separate, as I've been told, from the Sierra Drive, and then goes under Bryan Station Road and ends up near 75 somewhere. And that's how, somehow, LFUCG engineering has allowed them to use this water quality unit to, um, accommodate the 2% post-runoff rate. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Okay, last but not least, PFR 2009-5. That's under tab seven or behind tab seven in your notebook. This is Leestown Midles- Middle School renovation, and just for the record, this is irrelevant, but just for the record, I'd like to make a correction on page two of your staff report. Under the section Opposition to Facility, it says it's an elementary school. It's a middle school. That was pointed out to me, and I was like, "Okay, thank you." But the property is located at 2010 Leestown Road, and it's between the VA hospital and the on-ramp to New Circle Road. Leestown here, on-ramp to New Circle, and then access to the property is called Opportunity Way. That's off of Leestown Road, and then this is the entire, entire property. The property is, is zoned AU, and it's surrounded by different zones and different uses. We've got I-1 zoning to the north, and that's commercial property, and to the south is AU and P-1. That's vacant. To the east is P-1 zoning. That's also vacant. And then to the west is the, um, VA hospital, and that's zoned AU. The entire property is about 16 and a half acres. The building is about 92,000, a little bit more than 92,000 square feet, and they're adding 14,614 square feet. And on the site plan, Mr. Howard is probably gonna have to tell you exactly where demolition and, and reconstruction is, because it doesn't show on this one as well as it did on the other ones. But they're planning on totally renovating this building. It was built in 1958, and then they've had several additions since then, the last one being in 1984. Um, they're gonna do some demolition. They'll replace the mechanical systems and do upgrade of the electrical and fire protection and alarm system, and then there will be other interior, interior and site improvements. They're gonna add a kitchen, a media center, classrooms, and, a- and redo the building entry. This one also will be done in four principal phases, starting in June of this year. It'll go to November of 2010, and it's gonna be occupied during the course of the work. The comp plan recommends public education for this one as well. And the same goals and objectives as Bryan Station Middle apply to this one. Those are on page two to three of your staff report. And we've recommended approval for the same reason, because it's in compliance with the land use element of the plan and because the goals and objectives and the text of the comprehensive plan support this. And it has the same condition applied to it as far as permits from building inspection before construction or demolition. If you have any questions, Mr. Howard is here from Carmen Associates to answer any questions. Thank you, Barb. Thank you. Are there any questions for Barb or Mr. Howard? Uh, Ms. Copeland? Yes. Is any stimulus money coming to these sites? That I can't answer. Chris? Not that he's aware of. Thank you. Any other, any other questions? Thank you. I guess, uh, I need to ask, uh, do we need to take a motion on these or is it just for information purposes or... It's a recommendation, the way you do on all public facility reviews, if you have any other things that you would like to suggest or whatever, but... I see. Okay, great. Thank you. Basically, your analysis is to determine whether or not you find that it's in agreement with the comp plan. So to make a motion, you know, recommending and accepting the, the staff's approval as finding that it is in app- in compliance with the comp plan is sufficient. Is sufficient, okay. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that we support the staff's recommendation for approval for the Russell Cave Elementary School renovation, Bryan Station Middle School renovation, and Leestown Middle School renovation. Second. We have a motion and a second. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Okay, I think that, uh, concludes our portion of our agenda. I guess I'll ask the staff if they, uh, if they have any items, uh, share with us. Chairman, we don't have anything requiring any of your action. We do have a couple of things we wanted to, uh, make you aware of. Wanted to remind you first and foremost of your public hearing scheduled for next Thursday, where we're going to have public hearings to amend the comprehensive plan for both the East End and Central Sector small area plans. I think a very exciting day, and two major implementation items recommended by the last comprehensive plan update. So those hearings will be in this room at 1:30 next Thursday, and, uh, time permitting, we will, uh, indulge a little more of your time after that if things go well for maybe a couple of work session items, also, next week. Um, other than that, the staff, uh, has our activity report for the month here. If anyone has any questions about anything, we'd be glad to try to answer, uh, any questions, and, uh, that's it. Thank you, Mr. King. Are there, uh, I do want to say Mr. Duncan said that, uh, for next Thursday's public hearing, to bring these books back with you- Please. ... when you, when you come for the public hearing. So, um, just wanted to make that announcement. Are there any, uh, questions to the staff activi- activity report? Um, I know that, uh, staff stays quite busy and, uh, um, do enough to fill up a number of pages, uh, on the staff activity report. Uh, any questions, uh, they would like for staff to answer? Mr. Penn? Well, the staff or the chair maybe wanted to comment on the meeting we had Tuesday, uh, at the Red Mile. Okay, I'll, uh, I'll begin and then defer to Chris. Um, Mr. Penn asked about the meeting on Tuesday regarding the Red Mile. Um, that meeting, uh, on Tuesday had some good attendance. Um, those, those meetings are a work group that has been identified. That work group is made up of business owners, residents, uh, other property owners within the Red Mile vicinity. I wanna say there was probably 30, maybe, 25 to 30, perhaps. Uh, we had some commission members. We also had, uh, Council Member Hinson in, in attendance as well. Uh, a first, a good first start to the meeting, uh, is my understanding. Uh, we had some homework, uh, when I say we, uh, Stan Harvey and his team with Urban Collage. Uh, some of the participants had some questions, uh, regarding, uh, storm sewer and traffic and the usual things that, that we see in front of us. And I thought it was a good, good meeting, uh, quite informal. Uh, and folks were willing to ask questions and propose ideas. So with that, uh, I know Mr., Commissioner Penn, Commissioner Holmes, myself, Mr. King, you have anything you'd like to add? No, I think you've given an excellent summary, Mr. Chairman. Um, it is the first of a, a series of meetings over the next three months or so to try to identify concerns, goals, and visions for that property, uh, any special problem areas that will need attention as they move through the formal process. Um, we did make a presentation to you at your work session, uh, not too long ago, so I think you all are pretty up to speed on what we're trying to do. The, the Red Mile is looking at ways to develop their property and, uh, and also sustain the, the racetrack operation on the site is their expressed goal. And, um, we're trying to take advantage of having some redevelopment opportunities in a very urban setting, and it's a rare opportunity. And, uh, the idea behind this exercise is to try to do things a little differently than what happens quite often when an applicant, uh, first approaches the government with formal applications, to either change the text of the zoning ordinance, change the zoning of the property, submit development plans. And in, uh, discussion with the Red Mile owners, they agreed with, uh, our thinking that maybe we could do this in a different way and, uh, engage the surrounding area and, and try to do that first before we come forward with the formal proposals. And I think the, the idea is well-received, and, uh, and I do think that process is off to an excellent start. Thank you very much. Uh, I would note also, and if you read the activity report, there was, uh, uh, a work in progress, uh, development handbook. I think folks have those at your, uh, places, and, uh, uh, I'm sure staff would welcome any comment and feedback, uh, on the, the book, handbook itself. So, uh, with that, um, is there any other business, uh, any other items from staff? No, none from staff. I know there may be audience items, if, uh, if there are any. We customarily ask, but... Are there any audience items? Okay. Commission items, any further items for commission? All right. Is there a motion for adjournment? So moved. Second. We're adjourned. Thank you. Can I just take this with me so I can bring it back with me? It was enjoyed. I don't know about that. Green sack.