Also, Commissioners, make sure when you speak to the mic to hold it pretty close to your so they don't hear it.

We are recording on both these ends.

Are you ready?

Good evening, everybody.

And first of all, thank God at Travis McLean and Scott Owen belonging to members of Central Baptist for allowing us to use the sanctuary for our meeting tonight to accommodate everybody.

We welcome you here.

I might give the commission a few minutes to look over if they seek it earlier in the evening.

Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve minutes as well.

And a second commissioner Taylor.

Is there any further discussion on minutes?

Any corrections, any discussion?

Seeing nine hearing nine on paper yet?

Any opposed nay?

Motion passes.

Secretary Kent Matthews for explanation.

Yes, you should have received the financial reports in an email previous to the meeting and requesting appearment on the following accounts.

Ron Regni Engineering for three months, $750 and KAP for our insurance.

No questions on entertainment motion on the financial report.

Motion to approve.

Commissioner Mesley.

Commissioner Mayberg.

Any other discussion on the financial report?

Any questions?

Seeing none hearing all in favor, yay.

Yes.

Any opposed nay?

Motion passes.

Our next item of business, is there anyone here that would like to speak to something that is not on the agenda tonight?

Anybody that wishes to speak for something not on the agenda.

Okay, I see none this time.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask if the whole commission would agree to table number or letter C until January.

I have a motion from Commissioner Bush, table item number C to the January meeting.

Second.

And then second from Commissioner.

Is there any discussion on that?

Seeing not hearing nine, all in favor yay.

Any opposed nay?

Motion passed.

Bobby, tonight for specific.

I don't know if we're going to be here tonight and have a four number seat, but should we ask to see if you would like to leave?

Yeah.

So item number C, I'll read it to you.

Review and proposed text amendment to Article 6.12 of the Winchester Park County zoning ordinance regarding first floor residential units within the V2 Downtown Business District is District Historical Open Landry.

No one.

Okay.

Do we have a motion to take for this issue until January meeting and have a second?

Is there any other discussion?

See no discussion on paper yet?

Any opposed naight?

Motion passed.

I'd like to have our attorney, Mr.

Bobby Gillett to explain the procedures for the night.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

For those of you who don't know me, which is probably most my name is Bobby Gulf, and I'm the attorney for the Planning Commission.

The two matters on for tonight, both the item A and item B are requests to rezone property.

That is the most significant decision this body ever makes.

And the irony is it's the only decision that this body really doesn't make.

So what we will be doing tonight is we will be making recommendations to either the fiscal court or the city of wind charter, depending on where the property lies, to either rezone or to not rezone the property.

Now the significance of that for those of you who are here tonight in either support of or opposition of either of these items is that Kentucky law requires a public hearing on the zone map amendment.

It only requires one public hearing on the Zell Map Committee.

And although the governmental body, be it either the fiscal court or the uh city commission, have the right to hold their own public hearing, they almost never do it.

They rely on the hearing that is conducted before us.

So for that reason, uh tonight is your only guaranteed night to speak on this issue.

Uh if you want to speak when the appropriate time comes, and that will be after on each issue, the staff will make an initial presentation.

The application will be then discussed by the applicant, by their attorney, possibly engineer, whoever may be here on behalf of the applicant, and then the matter will be open to the floor for anybody in attendance to speak either for or against or to ask questions.

The only thing we ask is that you approach the podium, you begin by or the microphones, you begin by uh giving your name and your address, and you uh concise and avoid repetition to the extent possible.

The best point made in the world is not a very good point the fourth or fifth time when it's up.

We want to hear all the concerns, we want to hear all the support, but we just ask that you do so uh keeping in mind that we've got a long hearing and uh we need to get done with both of them this evening.

Thank you.

First public hearing is item number eight, review it's on that amendment proposal to be zone 2967 acres located at 72 Colby Road, 2025 road from professional office P1's general business key four.

This item is tabled from our last meeting.

I would like to ask or entertain a motion to remove from the table.

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to remove it and place it back on the agenda.

Okay, a motion.

Commissioner Blue She's there, second.

Second second, Mr.

McTabor.

All in favor, yay.

Any opposed nay?

Okay, motion is on the agenda and our turn that I want to have to claim director and Mr.

Rob Here for the staff report.

All right, I will just want to you might see me kind of flip back and forth to this screen for it because we are recording tonight.

Unfortunately, we're not even live streaming as we're off-site, but we're using this microphone and this this uh camera to uh record the the hearing.

As you can see, you can see both the planning commission and yourselves as you walk up to the microphones.

And so there's three different microphones you can walk up to, and uh so if you have every opportunity to uh make your comments on uh so I'm gonna make sure that if you see me put back and forth and check and make sure the recording is still recording.

Uh so I want to make sure that if you see me flip back and forth and the check and make sure the recording is still recording.

And uh but the the first item tonight, again, the applicants STL development L L Cemented zoning map and then an application to rezone the 2967 acre professional office zone property located at 2020 bypass road and 722 Colby Road.

Um the preliminary development plan is attached and describes a large acre grocery store central on the property, buying out parcels along the bypass, and two large lots for future development.

The property is shown on the future land use map is being anticipated for public or semi-public, and the future land use map is in the staff report.

The public slash semi-public land use that the description is shown in the staff report.

The land use designation has been used in several comprehensive plans.

Um reviewing earlier comprehensive plans, we found that the majority of the land located on the corner of the Colby and the bypass was originally anticipated for commercial use.

The 1990 comprehensive plan, the 1997 comprehensive plan, and the 2004 comprehensive plan are also shown in the staff report.

Um the property in question has been identified as commercial, professional office, and public slash semi-public, you know, within several conferences of plans.

Um the public slash semi-public appears on the future land use map found in 1997 and has been identified as subject or since as shown in the 2024 future land use map.

Um so as you can see, um, this this feature, this is from the 1997 conference of plan.

Um, the property in question, uh, this is the triangular piece of property here.

The C there stands for commercial, and so in 1990, when that conference plan is identified by the future land use plan as commercial.

And then going on to the 1997 future land use map.

So this was after the property was rezoned from agriculture to professional office, and you can see that the property is identified with these blue hashed out lines, and you can see that's for professional office.

Um then in 2004, that future land use map.

Um the property identified as public or semi-public, and you see it has what appears to be kind of dots or trees located on the property, and you can see that that future land use designation uh was public or semi-public.

Um then in 1997, there is a rezoning.

So the ordinance number 97-3 is attached to the staff report that describes the zone having mentioned the zone of the property in question from agriculture to professional office.

The zone change was brought before the planning commission at the December 1996 planning commission meeting and then forwarded to the fiscal court at the time that property was in the county in January of 1997.

Um in this staff report, we'll see Keras chapter 100.2.3, and it goes over findings necessary for the OSMA.

Um, and then we have KARIST 100.275, and that goes over uh Platz, development plans, local ordinances, and rural regulations, as they submitted their memory development plan with this application too.

And in the staff report, we go over the different uses that are permitted in the professional office zoning district.

Again, this is what it's currently zoned as.

So you can see that there's single family, multi-family, professional business, government offices, research, development, and testing laboratories, studios for production of teachings and fine arts, like photography, music, dance, etc.

Uh, travel agencies, medical and dental offices, schools and colleges, fed and breakfast homes, hospitals, kindergartens, etc.

Um, the meeting minutes from the 1997 or sorry, 96 planning commission meeting is also attached to staff report.

One of the findings that is listed in that in the minutes is uh the fact that their proposed use of professional office was uh less dense than what was originally anticipated for.

Again, originally it was anticipated in commercial in that 1990 plan, and then they went before the planning commission in December of 1996 and said you'd like to rezone it for a professional office so that we move a hospital here for an anticipation for the hospital we moved there, and it was a less dense as what was originally anticipated to be.

And you can see the different uses that would be permitted in that zone, wholesale business, laundry, cleaning, mobile home, travel, trailer, selling services, different retail sales, you know, different shops for trades, warehousing, greenhouses and reasons.

So it is one of the more commercial zone districts that we have.

We see a lot of B3 along the bypass as well as B4 along the bypass in that synonyme.

We have sample motions in the staff reporting on if the planning commission would like to make a motion to approve or make a motion to deny.

Again, echoing what Mr.

Golden said this motion is the recommendations of the government body, and the government body would have a final decision.

If they choose to accept the planning commission's recommendation, um, and if that recommendation is to approve, then that government would have to have two readings in order for it to be filed.

Any questions or comments for staff?

Regardless of how would you like the development plan if it is approved or not approved?

How do you want to address that?

So I know last meeting we had rezoning and the development plan and was included for the planning commission to approve.

I know that with the update to the subdivision development regulations.

Um can allow staff to approve as long as it meets a known requirement.

I've seen the development plan that meets a known requirement.

So if you would like staff to approve that plan without the planning commission, it is possible, and I'm good with that as long as Mr.

Gold is good with that.

But again, since it was included in the last planning commission meeting that we have, we went ahead and included a sound motion for the development.

So is that the will of the planning commission?

Any questions for Rob?

Any other questions?

Is that the term for that here?

Thank you, Mr.

Hart.

My name is John Romp.

I'm here on behalf of both the Greater Clark Foundation, who's the owner of the property, as well as SDL development, who is the developer who submitted an application to you all for a zone change.

Mr.

Chair, kind of approach the commission.

Just for the benefit of the public, um, I do appreciate this was rescheduled for tonight to allow the public to participate.

Um, what I've handed to the planning commission is just a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, which will be behind you.

I just wanted to make sure that they didn't have to constantly look over their shoulders.

What is before you tonight is a zone map amendment request for a property, approximately 30 acres at the corner of Colby Road in the bypass.

Uh this is a property that is commonly politically known as the traveling trail.

Um it has been utilized as a walking trail and recreation area for the better part of 15 years.

What is before you is not a choice between that and B4 zoning.

The property as staff has already said to you is zone P1.

It is zoned for development in a pretty intensive way already.

Walt family housing to be put there, an office building can be put there.

Um there's a lot of uses that could be put there.

And the owner has previously been approached by developers for the more than a dozen years I've worked with them multiple times to develop this property, and they've always said no.

Um they've chosen to attempt to work with this developer.

And I highlight that for you as a starting point because we all have choices in our community about how things are going to be developed, but I want to make sure that we're looking at this from the right framework of what currently exists and can be done without any type of process whatsoever, and what is being presented to you tonight.

And that is for the development of a shopping center.

It is not for any of those uses that are set forth in B4 zoning, it's for a very specific use and the development plan which submitted for those very specific uses.

Um I would submit to you that there's a two-prong approach tonight from a legal perspective of what the developer and the owner are asking to do in terms of the free zoning.

Um, as you all are pretty well acquainted with founding or staff report, um, you can either find that the you know the proposed rezoning is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and I submit to you there's a number of reasons which it is, or you can find that the current zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is more appropriate.

So I'm going to be a little longer tonight because normally I'm selecting one of those two things, but I think it's important to address both of them because I think they're actually both applicable under the present circumstances.

Mr.

Jeffries, if you don't mind skipping ahead of one.

As I always like to do with you, I just I know everyone knows where this property is.

It's not an unknown piece of our community, but we're talking about the area around Colby Road and the Bypass.

Corner where we have shopping center on one section, we have Walgreens on the other, uh Stockyards Bank backed up by Walmart on the other corner.

This is the epicenter of commercial development is the bypass.

That's what our comp plan says is where we put commercial development.

It's abundantly clear within the confines of the comprehensive plan that we want to have in field development.

You hear that all the time is appropriate planning.

Build where there is infrastructure, build where there is roadways to support traffic, build where fire and EMS have access to commercial developments.

Don't build them, don't have sprawl.

Confine those things to where we have the existing infrastructure and capacity to manage them.

The proposal before you tonight is in that area.

It is actually within the confines of the city of Winchester.

It is the area that the community has long developed a pattern of development along that bypass, and it is an area that is appropriate for what is being proposed tonight.

The next slide will just show you the current current zoning of the area.

Mr.

Jeffries kind of highlighted the existing zoning along the bypass, but I think it's important to kind of point out the general vicinity.

Right across the street, you have a shopping center.

Everyone will recall that's the former Win Dixie site.

We have shopping centers all along the bypass, and they are a mixture of zonings of either B3 or B4.

And that's historically how that those shopping centers have all been developed along the bypass, is in one of those two zones.

And as Mr.

Jeffries pointed out, this property was originally allocated for commercial development, basically since the new portion of the bypass from Colby Road connecting the Boonsboro Road was laid out.

At that point in time, it was identified for commercial development.

I've been kicking my father for four weeks because he's the one who was here in 1997 and asked for it to be P1.

And he did that because at the time it was designed, it was supposed to be for the hospital.

The hospital intended to locate its new facility there sometime in the future, and they intended to have out parcels for medical office buildings.

Those are the only intended uses.

So it made sense at that point in time to say, here's what we intend to use it for, and here's the appropriate zoning for that.

I will tell you that I've confirmed going back that there's not been a single time since then that there has been some developer or someone who's come and asked to build this out as professional office space.

It hasn't happened.

I would submit to you that that is indicative that that zoning is not appropriate as this use.

It's not the best use of this land, either commercially or as a community in terms of raising tax dollars, economic development, providing jobs.

If it were, there would have been someone in the last almost 30 years to have approached the hospital or then the Greater Clark Foundation and said, here's what we're going to do with this property.

I would submit to you that because of that, we have to reconsider alternative uses.

I think Mr.

Jeffries corrected himself, but I do want to make clear the comprehensive plans adjusted to show professional office in 1997.

I don't think it was until 2004 that it was switched to this idea of public use.

And I think that's something that's important for you all to talk about as well.

You have very competent counsel with you, and I would suggest to you that zoning property for or saying that something can only be used for public use actually shifts a pretty significant burden to your governmental bodies to think about how they're going to use that property.

I don't think that the government can say something is going to be for government use only and never at any point in time in history make an offer to purchase that property.

Do anything to develop that as public property.

That has not happened in 30 years.

There's not been an instance where any governmental agency has contacted the owner of the property and said to you, we want this for public use, here's what we'll offer you.

And instead, really the alternative has happened.

And they've done that really I I will present submit some historical articles, but in about 2007 or 2008, it first started being utilized in that manner.

And that was done as a partnership between local governance, the health department, and the hospital.

And it's been used that way.

But I don't think that it the as the government we can create a zoning classification that says you have to give this for public use, but we're not going to buy it from you.

I will tell you that no one in this room would tolerate that.

And the reason they wouldn't is it's it's contrary to the law.

It's a governmental taking to take your property and not allow you to be compensated for it.

And I think that's common sense to everyone.

So I would submit to you that you need to look at more than just the future land use maps.

The law says that you do that.

The future land that land use maps are supposed to be interpreted in conjunction with all the other language of the comprehensive plan.

And I'm sorry to be a little more long-winded than usual, but I want to drive home some of these points because I think it's very important.

I think this is a critical piece of land for our community, and I think people need to understand how the pieces go together.

I think there's two primary goals within the comprehensive plan that address this issue.

Goal number two of the comprehensive plan is really in my head what I think of as we're going to support infield development.

We want to have development within our community, concentrating industrial uses, commercial uses, and residential uses appropriately.

We want things to be built out, not in a sprawling way, but in a concentrated effort so that we're not wasting time, money, and energy on building infrastructure to nowhere.

I I've been in a dozen meetings where you've had other groups who advocate proper development come and speak to you, and they say to you, we want in field development.

Here's why it's important.

This is why we need to encourage changes to our zoning ordinance that encourage infill development, allow for a building on lots within the city.

This is in field development.

People may not like that it's in field development, but it is within the area of our community designated for future development.

There is no other piece of property where this type of development can go that is not going to require loss of ag land and is not going to require substantial economic investment in infrastructure improvements.

I know a lot of folks in the community would like to see much more development on the other bypass.

I would too.

I think that that side of the county has been underserved.

There's lots of ways that they could benefit from development, but quite frankly, it's impossible without the investment in infrastructure.

And no developer is going to be willing to do that.

That is why that portion of the county has not been developed.

I think it's a pretty well known fact that the cost of that development on the bypass would be extremely substantial, and no developer is willing to do that.

It is going to take the government to provide that infrastructure.

And it's there's a plan for it, but it's going to take time.

And I know that you all have addressed it in a zoning way, but if you'll recall all those rezones that you've done recently have been areas directly on that future bypass, and they've been smaller tracts of land.

And I'd submit to you that changing land from agricultural to a B4 or B3 zone is much more substantial than changing the density from P1 to a B3 or B4 on an existing bypass where there's ample infrastructure.

Goal number two of the comprehensive plan is really talking about its economic development.

And this project has substantial ability to provide a huge increase in our tax base.

It needs money.

If you pay attention to the city or the county government, they're always trying to pinch the budget to provide essential services.

I'm not talking about splurgy, but figuring out how to fund our jail, figuring out how to fund EMS, figuring out how to buy a fire station.

They're always confronted with this issue of we need we need more money.

And there's two ways of going about that.

You either increase the taxes on the folks who are here and the tax base you have, or you grow your tax base.

I mean, I'm not an economist, but you to get more money, you have to do one of those two things.

I can tell you that the proposed development, Mr.

Jefferson wants to skip me ahead.

The proposed development in terms of just high-level economic development.

The property is currently owned by a nonprofit.

There is no real property tax owned on that property because of that.

They have a nonprofit status.

If this rezoning is approved and the property is transferred to a for-profit entity like STNL development, it will be taxed based on its fair market value.

That tax base is tremendous.

You see on the development plan that was part of your staff report, there's seven out parcels.

All of those will be taxed as well.

The property tax alone will have a tremendous benefit for the county, the city, and the Clark County public schools.

There's no question about just that alone is a big benefit.

On top of that, though, assuming the project is built out as anticipated, you're looking at at least 300 new jobs within Clark County.

That's not insignificant.

The estimate is that that would result in $15 million a year in payroll tax.

That is real money that we're talking about.

I don't think money should drive all decisions, but I think it's a factor because our own community's comprehensive plan says it's a factor.

There is a goal within the comprehensive plan that says you're tasked with treating economic development as being important.

And so I'd submit to you that those things are important.

The other thing that I would tell to you is that the Great Clark Foundation's choice to partner with who they partner with is in partially due to one of the proposed tenants' charitable reputation.

They have a long history of that, and it's anticipated that they will continue that within our community.

Mr.

Jefferson, before I go to the next slide.

I'm going to try to kind of quickly point out to you some direct references to the comp plan and why I think this proposal is an agreement.

So the first would be that our comp plan specifically identifies downtown as the area where professional offices should be located.

It says that's the area in the downtown business district that we want to concentrate professional office space.

And I would suggest to you that because of that, that's a reason that the current zoning isn't appropriate.

It's this is not the downtown business district.

This is out on the bypass.

And our comp plan says downtown is where we want office space.

It also talks about we want to have development that is in areas where the design and density is compatible with what is already there.

What is before you in terms of the shopping center is very similar, if not identical to what's next door.

You've got an anchor shopping center, and you've got out parcels all around it.

It's similar to where Walmart is located, it is similar to where Kroger is located, all along the bypass.

The design and density are mirroring what we as a community have already chosen for those areas.

It talks about locating commercial, and I think you've got to have this you have for your side.

Talks about locating commercial backwards.

Sorry.

Keep going.

You got pretty far away.

That's okay.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Is this where we need to be?

Yes.

Um, and this is talking about to pay stepping out of the comp plan, locating new businesses in areas where there's population.

You all have approved a lot of rezoning for residential development, and it's all been on this side of the county recently.

You've got a new development on 627.

You have two new developments out in McClure Road.

You have another new development on the other side of 627 that no one's broken ground on yet, but you've got a lot of residential development in this area.

You're locating a future development and an area to serve a population population distribution.

Adequate access to transportation facilities.

The most heavily traveled road in the community, besides the interstate, is the bypass.

This is on the major transportation corridor of our community.

We're talking about having access to other facilities.

You're close to fire, you're close to EMS, you've got existing utilities adjacent to the site.

These are all things that are important and appropriate for development.

It cuts down on the long-term cost for our community for these commercial developments.

It's the appropriate way to do it.

We're doing it adjacent to the existing infrastructure that exists, and we're doing it in a way that provides adequate parking, buffering, and entrances.

I'll get to it in a little bit, but the parking actually shown on the development plan exceeds the requirements of our ordinance.

That was intentional.

There's a notation on the plan that we're going to make sure the proper buffering and compliance with the plan is there, as well as lighting and compliance with our regulations.

Applicant has had a traffic study performed, and as a result of that traffic study, they're wanting to required to make improvements both on the bypass and on Kobe Road in order to account for this development.

If you we'll get to it in a second, but if I may approach Mr.

Chair.

Obviously, anything that is approved in final format is going to require the Department of Transportation to approve of it.

They're going to have to review the traffic study, they're going to have to give it its blessing.

But this traffic study was done because I know a lot of people always have concerns about traffic.

I understand that this area, there are bad traffic incidents.

I'm well aware of them.

I have friends, people that I consider friends that live in the area who I know hear screeches on Colby Road all the time.

I believe that when you add turn lanes, it's going to benefit the existing development that's already there.

You have a lot of traffic trying to make its way out right or left onto Colby Road, and it's going to require people to slow down because there are going to be turn lanes there to service not only this development but the other development as well.

If you want to, I think you've gotten one more ahead, Mr.

Jeffries, but what's behind you or what's in front of you?

Another thing that our comprehensive plan talks about is not building within the flood zone.

That's just the FEMA maps, FEMA maps demonstrating that this property is not located within a flood zone.

Again, that's in compliance with our comprehensive plan.

I would ask that you make that traffic study part of your record here tonight.

I think that you know I'm responding to some of the concerns that we've heard recently from folks about wanting to know that the traffic is going to be accommodated for.

This is a licensed engineer in Kentucky who has said this is what needs to be done.

And the applicant has, you know, uh conditioned itself and said we're willing to do these things to make make sure that this is done the correct way, and it's already been submitted to the transportation cabinet.

Um discussions about that have been on.

Perfect.

And that's just talking about that traffic study.

If you want to skip ahead one more, Mr.

Jeffrey.

I'm going to switch gears.

Um I told you there's a two-prong approach for you tonight.

One is to find that it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan.

You know, I didn't cite every section possible, but I think I've given you a lot of evidence to suggest to you that there's a lot of ways this proposal is in agreement with the comprehensive plan.

Are there ways that it's probably not?

Sure.

And that's because that's a that is a living document that's the result of the community's very hard work and coming up with a plan for our community, and it's got internal inconsistencies, and that's normal, and it's your job to weigh those.

Um, but you just need to make findings uh if you want to recommend this that say it's supported by it.

And I I don't see how you cannot think it is.

There are there is ample evidence within the comprehensive plan to demonstrate that, and the most significant evidence to the contrary, quite frankly, I don't think it can be legally binding.

You cannot have a condition on property that can only be for use for public use and not have the public in any way compensate the landowner for that.

That's just contrary to law, and I would suggest you consult with your counsel about that to get confirmation.

But I would submit to you can't have something identified that way and then not allow it to be purchased by the government and no author to come for the government.

Your call from the beginning, I said the second way that you can approve this is you can make the determination, the present zoning is inappropriate, and the proposed zoning is appropriate.

And I think to consider that, you do have to have a little discussion of the history of the property.

Um, as Mr.

Jeffries pointed out, 1990, um, the large the furthest back that I could find, and I guess that he could find comprehensive plan map showed this as commercial use.

Um, my recollection that was my childhood, but my recollection is that was corresponding with the time the development of the bypass was taking place, and specifically that portion of the bypass was taking place.

If you look at that portion of the comprehensive plan, it's it's it's kind of interesting to look back and see what how things are identified because in some ways we followed it exactly, but in some ways we've we've kind of gone off on different directions on that.

Um, a lot of the area identified for single family residential was actually commercially developed.

So it's a guidepost, but it is not a constraint to look back at our old maps.

In 1997, it makes sense.

The comp plan changed to reflect the fact that the rezoning had taken place.

Uh the property was owned by the hospital, the greater, excuse me, the Clark Regional Medical Center hospital at that time, and you know, they they had that as a future potential use of the property.

Um they were looking ahead and made the determination that made sense to acquire it, but before they wanted to acquire it, they wanted to make sure it could be used in the manner that they thought it would be, and that was as a you know, professional office buildings and a hospital site, not as a walking trail, not as the traveling trail.

In 2004, that changed for the first time.

And you know, the anecdotal evidence that I've been able to find is that the traveling trail did not begin until much later, but I my guess is it was being used in that manner for recreation purchase purposes then, or it wouldn't have been identified that way.

Um I can approach again, Mr.

Chair.

What I presented to you is basically an article kind of from the time that this was done and dedicated as a walking trail, and it talks about how it came to fruition.

And I think it's important.

There was a collaboration between the hospital at that time, the health department, and a group of volunteers who put their sweat into building this out as a walking trail.

And I think it's important, and I think it's important because that's how we got to where we are here tonight.

Um, but I also think it's important to highlight that it was always intended to be temporary.

The reason it's called a traveling trail, as you'll see from this document, is that it was intended to travel from one site to another.

And it didn't happen, but that literally is what the name comes from.

Other historical articles from the time of the newspaper talk about it being a temporary place.

That is what it was when this commitment was made by the hospital.

That was what everyone's understanding of it was.

At the time, it was done in collaboration with the health department so that insurance could be provided for the property.

The hospital leased it according to this document, and according to everyone I've talked to who had personal knowledge of it, leased it to the health department so that it could be insured.

And a group of volunteers built it out as a walking trail.

There's no doubt about that.

And they spent a considerable amount of time doing that for the benefit of our community.

And they came before this commission at that time to get it approved by the Planning Commission to make sure it could be used that way.

And you know, I think it's been a tremendous benefit to our community.

There's no doubt about the fact that public green spaces are excellent for local communities.

Our comprehensive plan state talks to that too.

But a lot has changed since then.

The hospital was sold, and a new hospital facility was located closer to the interstate.

It's no longer possible that this is going to be a hospital site, as was intended by those prior future use, future land use maps.

The Greater Clark Friend Foundation took control of the hospital's assets, and they've continued allowing it to be used as a walking trail.

It's no longer done in partnership.

They've maintained it, they've insured it, they've taken care of it by themselves for the greater part of the last at least 12 years that I'm aware of.

During that entire time, there's not once been an offer from a public entity to purchase this property.

As I said before, I'm aware of multiple times they've been approached by commercial developers, residential developers, but not by anyone attempting to develop this either as public office space, or excuse me, as office space, professional office space, a medical facility, anything like that, or for public use.

It's not happened.

And I I would suggest to you that the landscape is also changed in a tremendous way in terms of what else is here.

The Greater Clark Foundation did invest in creating another public green space, and that's located on Lexington Avenue, and it's run by a nonprofit called Legacy Greenspace.

It's Legacy Grove Park.

But that was the foundation's commitment to green space.

They provided that public amenity and they continue to help support it in an economic fashion.

And there is extra walking trails there that are ADA accessible, they're paid, they can be used year-round, and it is an amendment.

And I can tell you that the Greater Clark Foundation is committed to continue to explore opportunities for more recreational areas within our community within this exact geographic area.

That's a commitment that they have to the community, but also to their mission.

And the fiduciaries of that organization are committed to making sure they're good stewards of those assets and of those opportunities, and they're committed to continue exploring those opportunities as they become available and as they present themselves.

And the decision that was made by them was done in the full context of that, of everything that they know and everything that they are they are trying to anticipate.

If you want to step skip ahead, Mr.

Jeffries, I just want to talk very briefly about the proposed developer, SDNL developer, STNL development.

They are a national developer that makes a point of working with local communities and local people when they do develop work.

They've done projects in Kentucky, Indiana.

If you skip ahead, Mr.

Jefferson, you kind of see some of what they've done.

They've done shopping centers in Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina that are ongoing right now.

They work all over the country and they work with what I've experienced so far, top rate engineers to make sure that things are done appropriately.

You all see all kinds of development plans that get submitted with free zoning applications.

Sometimes they're they are done on one page with very little detail.

I think what is before you is extremely robust in terms of meeting the requirements of our subdivision regulations, meeting the requirements of all of our ordinances, as I said, related to parking, lighting, and buffering.

They're committed to seeing this project through and doing it in a manner I think that would be a huge benefit to our community.

So, Jefferson, we're going to skip ahead a little bit to the development plan.

I just want to briefly highlight this as Mr.

Jeffries talked about.

Since I was last before you, I think you have now adopted your subdivision regulation, changing the ordinance.

So I don't think you have to approve the development plan anymore.

I think it's a function of staff.

But I do, because it's still required to be submitted, want to talk a little bit about what is there.

You can see that you have a shopping center as kind of the anchor central to the site.

You then have five smaller outparcals kind of ranging from about an acre to an acre and a half along the bypass.

And then you have two larger parcels designed for commercial use as well or other mixed use along the side and the back of the property.

You see the entrances that are proposed.

They're both the existing entrances that currently exist, both off of Colby Road and off in the bypass.

They're again our design going to be design requirements to improve those entrances in both in both areas to enable proper traffic safety measures to be met.

They'll have to be approved by the transportation cabinet before they're ever allowed to do anything.

On the bottom right hand portion, you'll see there's an extremely large stormwater detention basion shown.

It's been engineered to demonstrate that that is going to be sufficient to meet the capacity needs of stormwater in this area.

You see topography on this map.

Again, that's going above and beyond what you often see in terms of preliminary development plans.

But they this has been an engineered site.

This has not been something that's just been you know slapped together to get quick approval.

This is highly engineered at this point.

And I would submit to you that because of that, it does meet our requirements in the subdivision regulations.

It does meet what is required of good development in our community.

What our community says you want to see from developers, they've done, they check the boxes.

You approve all the time things that you know get eight out of ten, they're aiming to get 10 out of 10 there.

One of the things that I've seen folks concerned about is not understanding potential uses, and I can just tell you that in my professional experience having been involved in a lot of developments like this, there's no development like this with an anchor tenant that does not involve substantial, significant restrictive covenants that protect the anchor tenant.

And the reason for that is they don't want to make substantial investments in areas where they can't control what's around them.

So if you look throughout our community along the along the bypass, all those places where you see big national anchor tenants, you can tell they're all developed in the same way.

You don't see uses that are contrary to public what the public wants and values, and it's intentional.

They don't want to be surrounded by things that do not benefit uh their economic development.

So although I can't talk to you about the specifics of what those are tonight, I can tell you that this development uh will be constrained significantly by you know typical restrictive covenants for this type of development.

Map rich again, Mr.

Hart.

The last thing I'm providing to you as I always do on a zoning map amendment request, this proposed findings is fact.

I think you'll find that those mirror, those items that I've talked to you about here tonight.

Um, the intent is to show you and to demonstrate to you for do these proposed findings all the ways that I believe either one of those statutory requirements can be met.

Again, that the proposed rezoning is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, or alternatively, that the current zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate.

I will tell you that the applicant is here tonight.

Um, if you have any questions directly for the applicant, their engineer, Mr.

Wesley Pointer, is also here if you have any questions for him.

Um I would ask to, as is our practice to reserve some time for rebuttal, and I would ask that you make part of your record here tonight, the PowerPoint presentation, the traffic study, the letter documenting the historical kind of development of the property.

Um I think there was a submission by Mr.

John Walker, and I would just ask that that being called as well since I was scripting.

And that's all I have for now, but I would like to resent you.

Yes, sir.

Hello, I appreciate you allowing me to talk tonight.

Uh, my name's John Walker, and I go to 204 Chardonnay Court.

Um 204 Chardonnay Court.

Um I've uh been doing trail work uh through Clark County and uh central Kentucky for probably over 25 years, and I was one of the original members of uh the grassroots coalition that helped develop the traveling trail.

And um what I'd like to do tonight is we've heard a little bit about the economic development side at the comprehensive plan.

And what I'd like to do is kind of go through some of the some of the things in the comprehensive plan that are a little bit that are uh that go a little bit differently than that.

And uh I've submitted my comments, Mr.

Jeffrey's.

So uh I had a few questions.

The first was yes, the uh the area is zoned as a professional office space, but if you look on your map, your land use map, it has also been uh it's been listed as a park.

And so that's a little bit of a contradiction there.

So you're counting it as a park plus zoning, it is professional office space.

On page 48, you actually say that uh Clark County's uh park acreage is 55% below the national average.

I maintain that it's farther below than that because we you also counted the path, which was another walking trail along uh Winchester or along uh 627, and that that uh was uh was gone, it was uh it's on to I think a housing developer and there are several other things, so I believe you're below 55% below the national average.

Um you also uh if you go to page 56, you talk about the importance of encouraging active and uh healthy lifestyles, and you know, if you if you rezone this and allow this to happen, then uh you're gonna are you really reducing uh the amount of uh of active healthy lifestyle that's available for Clark County residents?

I kind of wondered about that.

Your vision statement on page 68 says that uh you propose to enhance transportation network for pedestrians and bicycles.

So by doing this by changing and not allowing the traveling trail to continue there, are you gonna is that really what you're uh is that going to fit with that uh vision?

And that's your overall vision.

More specifically, if you go to uh the goals and objectives in your plan, it said goal number two on page uh 69 says that you uh intend to preserve, protect natural areas.

So that's what we're doing at the moment, we're using it as a natural area, albeit it's zoned as professional office space.

Um if you go to goal number nine, uh it says that you intend to double the number of uh existing park acres to meet the national benchmarks, and that's within the next decade or so.

If we reduce uh this park, which is listed on your land use plan, isn't that going to go in the opposite direction that you said you were going to go in?

Um a couple of things that uh Mr.

Ronf mentioned uh is that it's uh no public uh entity uh came into play to purchase this property.

Well, let me ask you a question.

Wasn't this uh when the hospital back when the hospital was developed?

Wasn't it public money from the city and the county that went into uh the into the hospital?

So essentially, and it was a nonprofit that the hospital was, so it wasn't essentially public money, the money that the Greater Clark Foundation has, isn't that in part public money?

And so therefore it's it could be used for uh a public uh entity.

And I'd just like you to kind of think about this a little bit.

Uh you know, your uh comprehensive plan says that you're gonna balance development and uh and green space and public places, and we're below the national average, you know, we need those kind of things.

Yes, it's called the traveling trail because it was going to travel somewhere, but my point is it was never intended to be called the temporary trail.

And we need to uh we can't just say it's gonna go away because it's zoned and we're gonna it's gonna disappear.

What happens when the next comprehensive plan comes about?

Are you just gonna say uh yeah, now we're 70% below the national average?

And I I maintain that it between the Greater Clark Foundation and the planning and zoning, it's partially your responsibility to help us find a green space in town and to do those things.

Um lastly, I want to leave you with uh one last thought.

Uh just something to think about.

When you go places, when you travel and go to uh communities, and don't you like to go to places that have green space and have parks, you have places to walk, or places to bicycle ride.

Do you go and do you enjoy those places and you go there?

Do you uh or do you go because they have three, four, five grocery stores on very busy road in a town size of Winchester?

I would like, I would love it if we could make Winchester and Clark County somewhere that people want to come visit and maybe even here.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Would you like this copy maybe part of the red?

Yes, sir.

Great.

My name's Greg Thompson, my wife's Susan, we live at 510, Colby Road.

Colby Road is a very narrow road between Boone Avenue and bypass.

And our greatest concern is the accelerated traffic and danger that is presently imminent for pedestrians.

Currently, the sidewalk on Colby Road ends at Bristol Place.

And as the commission considers this expansion, it is critical that sidewalks be a part of this development plan.

As my wife refers to me as the mayor of Colby Road, as I said to my recliner and watch the traffic people leaving town going to the country, people in the country coming to town.

During the summertime, I see about two dozen boats about every day walking on the side of the road.

On May the 17th, there was a near headlong collision right in front of my house.

The reason for those young lady about 14 years old walking from town outcomes.

And she's wearing our clothes.

And right there in front of the cold's pretty well that we got a big light right there with our driveway, but she wasn't visible.

And a young man in his car swerved to miss her.

And when he swerved to miss her, he had a head off closing two cars by now.

And the little 14-year-old girl was scared to death.

She ran away and down a lane and back up over in the neighborhood.

It's a very dangerous area for pedestrians.

Saturday night after parade.

There's another accident.

Just as we consider development, Susan and I just asked the citizens to please, please, please, under the dollars, to consider proper installation of sidewalks for the citizens.

And let's get the sidewalk from a personal place connected to the new development soon they get approved.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Yes, sir.

My name is Danny Crew.

408 Willow Brook Road in Winchester.

I live down at uh in the flood zone.

I know that the gentleman that preceded me said that the foot that the proposed area wasn't in the flood zone.

However, I am.

I was told by the uh survey man here in Winchester years ago that water runs downhill.

Well, I'm concerned over the increase of water that would come from a large store like a public or something like that, a parking lot.

It has affected other areas in the bypass that's not in the flood zone.

I noticed going down the bypass that Stroge Creek, they'll have temporary signs up that says high water zone.

And I noticed that creek or drainage ditch, if I would call it, is focal.

I have also noticed that since 1997, the water weapon has increased at my house.

Thus it causes more flood insurance, an increase in it.

It's gone up every year.

There's several residents in the area that's flooded.

This last rain that occurred, the public works drainage ditch that runs between my house and the neighbor, and underneath of Windridge Drive, it flooded their basement.

There is a lot of water that comes down from Colby Road, which that area I noticed.

It's got a I call it swamp.

It looks like a little pond or something on the corner.

I don't know if ducks go in there or insects, bugs, snakes or what.

I'm not a tree hugger by any means.

Went online and read that no development can increase the water level in a flood zone over a foot, I think, if I'm not badly mistaken.

You need to make sure with all of the houses that it's in the flood zone, that this rezoning of a large building doesn't affect the water level because I know the ground absorbs it, but with a large parking lot, I've seen it in Lexington, I've seen it in other areas.

Public works does a great job trying to keep the culprits clean and the land numbers continue.

But my major concern is the increase in water.

I need to be reassured as a resident since 97 that the water level doesn't increase.

My backyard, I can't use it.

And it probably I would say at a high 11 is 40 foot, 40 foot wide that runs down through there.

On the public work side, I would say it's up to 25 feet wide.

So with the increase in development, where it is now with the houses, there would be yards.

The streets, there would be cars, the ground would absorb the rain.

A large parking lot, it's not going to do it.

It's going to run someplace.

I also noticed that on the other side of the work road, I think the foundation I'm mid to at one time.

It crosses the bypass twice.

So we do get some water from that side of the bypass.

And then I don't know if Richard McCreepy air still on the forest or not, but there's a lot of uh area in there too.

If it all gets the development and turned into black dot, it's it's gonna it's gonna run me out.

And it's uh an increase, a tax increase is gonna happen you know, on just uh the flood insurance.

So I just want all the residents in the windridge area to be assured that even if there is a rezoning, it will not affect the flood zone.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name is Dave Diedrich.

I live at 255 Bloom Avenue in Winchester.

Everybody hear me?

Yeah.

All right, but I'm against you for two different reasons.

Uh and they're both very selfish reasons.

First off, my dog, Miss Killing, and I walked the track and trail every day, including this morning.

She would miss the wildlife that she sees that you can't see at 255 billion there.

And not that I'm in shape, but it does help me as well.

Secondly, I live on probably the fourth or fifth busiest interception in town, and if the increased traffic goes down Colby Road and turns at my corner, I don't know what's going to happen.

It's busy now.

It'll be just tremendously disruptive.

So that's why I'm against it.

Both selfish reasons.

And I guess John helped me.

It is for sale.

True.

The property.

No, it's it isn't for sale.

It's under contracting sold.

Oh, it is so.

Okay.

Well, you know, just for farm.

I got to read about the mission statement that the Greater Clark Foundation put on the website.

And I won't read them all.

There's a couple that are pretty interesting.

But the one I thought was really interesting is we believe in the abundant capacity of people to create communities they cherish.

For this reason, Great of Clark Foundation favors investments in people over projects.

You said it wonderfully.

Thank you.

What they don't say about this picture in development is that's not just a bypass zone.

The third back property in that picture, if you will, is in front of single family residents.

My house specifically.

Nowhere else in Park County.

Is there a chain big box retail Walmart that's directly across from a single family residence?

Across the street from across high packs from Walmart is on a commercial.

And I can see that from this first row, first row of five plaza.

But when it starts getting back to the front of mine and Bonda's house, uh that's that's in my front yard.

There's no amount of trees or bushes unless they're printing red woods that's blocking out.

The dumpsters come back into public store, and we know that's only developed, or anything else that takes that away 24 hours a day, the lights, the parking.

Leaving there, I do get the screeches.

You think you have someone who lives on Cobia here to screeches from all the rest.

I hear this.

It happens often.

My uh gas movement has been taken out.

Bond is a gas move is been taken out.

We've got Bondas, uh, Fonders Hairfare, her uh fire hydrants, numerous times being taken out.

Turn lanes, not the expert, I live there only with exacerbate because we're slowing people down as they screwing up Kobe Road.

Um secondly, we want to talk about you know, all that this company's done everywhere in different places.

I'd like to be able to look at what Fort Thomas has done.

Fort Thomas totally no, because it was on a two-line street where it is just like Kobe Road.

I'd like to think we're as smart as Fort Thomas.

Uh third, for the community, if any of you have children or school children, you know, every child in the county is on free lunch.

Not that well to the county of individuals, and to bring a third major chain public grocery store within less than a mile and two others that Lexington has already done the research on.

They're more expensive than Walmart or Crows.

Maybe not only individual satellite, but as a whole.

So what are we?

What are we asking for?

Another empty building.

There's plenty of room already zoned for this.

But my major drive is establishment because it comes directly in my front yard.

We don't do that anywhere in Clark County.

What precedent are we setting for that?

Oh, I'll take an order at this moment there.

Say the Craig Clark County Foundation, I'm disappointed in the paw for taking the Chinese paint.

So my name is Heather Penachett.

I live at 3575 Old Moonsboro Road.

I was strongly encouraged and even received requests to speak tonight to let you all know that there is a large group of Clark County residents that are actually in favor of this zoning change.

We acknowledge that this is not a request to change agricultural land or green space zoning to commercial.

We have a clear understanding of what the current zone P1 would allow and are in agreement with the proposal that the zoning change required for this potential development is necessary.

I would be the first to admit that if the request was to change agricultural land to commercial, I would be in opposition of it.

However, that decision has already been made.

What you are being asked to decide is do you want to leave the land in its current zone with the knowledge that it can come a multitude of things such as office buildings, small retail, multi-housing, or do you want to make the change allowing this particular proposal?

I spent 10 years of my life in a small town outside Tampa, Florida.

I watched what is rumored to be this company come into that town and the positive benefits that it made.

I think that it can do the same for us here in Winchester.

I would vote in favor of the change.

It is my opinion that the proposed development would not only provide a much needed opportunity for growth, but also best suits this particular location.

As we all know, the bypass is the central hub for Winchester retail.

I have researched the vacant land, the zoning of those properties, their size and relevant locations to our current shopping and the usage of those lots in the area.

I was unable to locate a potential site that better suits this particular development.

Clark County is often left behind.

We have had a multitude of businesses that have made proposals to develop in our town, and for whatever reason those requests have been denied or discouraged.

I strongly encourage you to not let this be another one of those cases.

There are constant complaints about how crowded our current options are.

If you were there this weekend at either location, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

If we want better alternatives, if we want business growth that encourages residential growth, if we want to keep the hustle and bustle somewhat contained, this is our chance.

The complaints regarding heavy traffic are valid.

The complaint I heard tonight about flooding is valid.

I would suggest that this particular location could actually relieve some of the congestion we currently face between Walmart and Lowe's.

This property being towards the end of the bypass could easily be argued that it would reduce traffic in the areas that are most heavily trafficked now because it's at the end of the street.

With the new Aldi that's been rumored to be going in at the opposite end, that would also help reduce traffic if we don't have to go all the way from Walmart through Kroger Lowe's in that particular area.

I would also argue that the current zone allowing multi-family housing would be worse for that corner than this development.

Let's consider that a multi-housing unit was proposed.

800 units.

Before long, we will be forced to change agricultural land if we want to continue to grow.

But that does not have to be today.

It would be the best choice to use this land that has already been changed and is available on the bypass in the hub of our town and meets the same usage as the surrounding lots.

Therefore, I would like to provide you with support and encourage all of you to proceed with the jump zoning change request.

Regardless of what decision you make tonight, there will be residents that are unhappy.

I will respect personally whatever decision you decide.

I trust moving forward that the proposal is if it is approved, the proper traffic analysis, planning, and the proper things will be put in place to help those in the flooding area to ensure that this is the safest, most reasonable, and the best outcome for everyone.

I appreciate your time, and I'm looking forward to hearing your decision.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Hey folks, my name is Joel Watt, and I live in 723 Colby right across from that boom lock.

The true want to put in.

I've had my mailbox taken out three times.

My neighbors did that and stuff.

We've uh seen a lot of accidents there.

Three times that mailbox will take it out.

One time was at Thanksgiving, and I had grandkids, and the kids just came into the house, and the guy was right up in my yard.

Colby is a small road that is well trafficked.

Now you guys don't have to live here.

You can build and go on.

You don't see what goes on after you build.

I've been in extensive places all over the United States, and I've seen these things happen for the negative.

And it's uh shame that you take something that is perfectly will to do for the group of the town and change it, and then you leave and you don't see what happens.

So be very careful when you do these things because you're gonna kill people.

And you don't even know.

Appreciate your attention.

Thank you.

I guess my statement would be just because we can doesn't mean we should.

I live at 16.

Paul and I live at 6'10 Coley Road.

We have a section, and I respect if they're wanting to buy this property or already have, but we have a section that is it's just brutal.

When you pull out you hold your breath, we pull out in accident after accident, Friday night.

We had a car flipped over.

There is nowhere to go.

There's no room for air, there's no way to fix it.

And yes, we do have a lot that have to walk in the pit.

There is no sidewalk.

But that being said, we bought that house 30 years ago, we built that house 30 years ago.

We knew at some point it would, but Mr.

McCready did not agree with this.

He was not that type of man, he owned the property.

I get he's not here.

I still don't understand the thing about the Grover Clark Foundation.

I don't know what their purpose is because I have yet to figure it out.

I do know that if they got it free, why can't they give it away free?

Why is it?

Why can't we get it to the county?

Why can't we get it to the city?

Why can't we do something to make it worthwhile in another way that is healthy?

We drive by every day.

I'll see kids, moms, dads, dogs, everyone walking that trail.

I don't care what time of year it is, and we also have an owner community.

Once you do that, we already are following it from the library to that light.

About an hour a day on Colby, that is a very, I don't know that it was ever meant to maintain this kind of traffic.

I called this thing for a traffic study.

They told me they're not going to not want to do that.

I don't understand that we can't find out information.

I don't know why we can't find out information that we need because it impacts so many of us that live right there.

I love the green space.

I'm not against the fact that it is a commercial property.

I get that.

But just because we know we can doesn't mean we should, because Paul's pending it at the top of the hill through that truck all the way down the road.

I knew it.

Friday night, we've had people flipping vehicles, kids going to Santa to shop with Santa Claus, vehicles, 530, 630.

We can't maintain it with the fact that I'm I try to get a track.

I try to get it, but they said usually the person purchasing despair.

So I try to get that yesterday to be aware.

But there is no getting emergency vehicles from almost at the library.

I don't know if y'all ever been on or leaf chuck.

And I'll get calls, that's not me, Patty, that's not some attack.

Paul and I say that.

So at the top of the hill, police can't get down.

Pause down there, trickle down the fake, trickle down a fair.

It's like somebody's gonna hit somebody, somebody's gonna hit somebody.

I don't know that anything they can do can stop that.

And that entrance they talked to about the barn, that's not a good entrance.

That's not a good exit.

I hold my rent coming out the top of our road.

There's no places that put lights.

And then when they're talking about rangers, Paul and I live in land.

We were floated.

We lived at 410 lower growth.

That water is they can't act, they don't make cogs like they should.

We are flooded twice before our house, our new house was finished, lost everything in our basement.

Everybody at the street across, across the street.

And you cannot tell me that you don't change the flow of barn when you build something.

I'm not that right, but you will, and it can happen, and nobody should lose just for the dollar of somebody that doesn't invest in our community.

The greater park foundation is, and they should give it back to our community, not to someone out there.

And that's a lot of thought.

Thank you.

I feel that the rule of community is fairly clear here.

So I took Mr.

Bellett's advice under consideration.

I understand that we're not always speaking to you, but also the fiscal court, and in fact to our legislature.

It seems that everybody here wants the same thing.

We want property rights to be respected.

We feel that the GCF should be able to make a reasonable profit on the property.

And also we want to know.

We want to find out what they want.

But we all want to work with you, we want to make this happen.

This is something that has become ordinary.

I'm sorry.

It seems to me that this is not the project, since we would have to make major changes, that they are offering us the opportunity to build a road larger.

It cannot be built.

The reason that there's accidents on Colby is because there's no place to put another road.

It's too narrow.

The traffic problems cannot be solved.

The drainage problems cannot be solved.

This is a without being exaggerated.

This is a death sentence for everybody who moves down the creek.

I mean, if you move the problems of access with the traveling trail as they are, they can't be solved.

To say that this project is I thought it very interesting for this project, and the money from this project was connected to the MIS money sink that is our jail system.

But the idea that a new grocery store within side of two other grocery stores and across the street from the abandoned grocery store will be the silver bullet that solves the problem of this community.

Seems to me specious.

So it is on us as a community to take care of this.

But no matter what, I don't think this is a project.

Thank you very much, you're not.

If I am correct.

So that land was never paid for.

It was given with community.

The Greater Clark Foundation was formed to benefit the community.

I'm correct.

So now the Greater Clark Foundation is going to sell the property without asking the community if they wanted that.

They asked the community what they wanted when they built Legacy Grove, but they're not asking the community what they want now.

And they've made a deal apparently that is contingent upon the zoning of this being changed.

So this is different than a person owning property and selling it because this is a nonprofit that is here to benefit the community.

So the landowners are the Greater Clark Foundation, which is for the community.

Also, I want to say that there is not an access currently from Colby Road.

I live right there.

I'm at the trail often.

There is not an open trail.

There is a little gate with the gravel, and it is always closed.

It is never open.

So no one is using access from Colby Road to access that property right now.

That is not correct.

And then also, according to the public trust, the trust for public land, only 48%, which Mr.

Walker had said is even less, only 48% of Winchester residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park.

Even in the trail, the traveling trail is not a public park.

It's included in the total amount of park space in Clark County.

The traveling trail is directly accessible to over 1,500 people, and it is the only one here in its size on the southern part of Winchester.

Compare this to Lichens Park, where only six people, six, are listed within a 10-minute walk of the park.

So losing this invaluable community asset would further erode equitable access to green space.

Additionally, just 3% of Winchester land is used for public parks compared to the national average of 15%.

And as this, even though it's not a park, it's thrown into the mix, accounting as a park, it comes closely behind lichens and legacy.

So imagine how our percentage would be if the traveling trail is paved over.

We don't need more storefronts.

We need to preserve what little green space that we have.

And I'm asking the planning and zoning, what are you doing?

What are you going to do to achieve your national benchmark that you have in place to double the park that we have?

And honestly, I will say my hope is that this deal doesn't go through and it's not sold, and that the Greater Clack Foundation will realize the importance of this park and keep it as it is for the community, or maybe they could give it to a park system that would maintain it and take care of it for the community.

And may I approach the members with the photo?

Thank you.

And that's all I have to say.

Good evening.

My name is Cassie Greed.

I own the property at 339 West Washington Street.

I'm relatively new to Cork County.

I've only been here for a few years.

On this side of town, the downtown side, not only does most of this side not have sidewalks.

A lot of the roads, as said before, are pretty narrow, and there's relatively decent amount of loose dogs in the area.

So I cannot safely walk my two dogs in my neighborhood.

So most days I go to the traveling trail.

Sometimes if it's dark, I go to the hospital to walk.

Sometimes I'll go on to BCTC because there are other places that are just either unsafe or out of the way, or not, I guess, zoned for lack of a better word, for places to walk my dogs.

That's one of the reasons why I'm against this project, because I will now have one less space dedicated to walking my dogs.

And as someone mentioned before about the fitness of this community, that's a place I can go.

That path, if anyone's measured, is almost a mile long.

So if you do that path a couple of times, you get a pretty decent walk-in.

I have questions about the traveling trail.

This is new information to me that it's supposed to be moving.

So this is a traveling trail when it no longer is here.

My question is where is it supposed to go next if we no longer have this available to us?

Lichens is also somewhere I've gone with my dogs before.

Sometimes it is pretty unsafe.

There's even cops that are present out there certain times of the day.

And then there's space that's grown on the other side of that park, so sometimes I don't feel safe going all the way out to Lichens as it is out of town.

If you're over here at bypass, you're pretty close to the central part of town, or at least where there's a bit of traffic.

This woman over here mentioned just because we can doesn't mean we have to.

So if you guys have been over where Jersey Mike's has just been built in all that area, that intersection is absolutely terrible.

Coming in from Lexington Road, if you go in, trying to get to Applebee's to TJ Maxx, and then now a potential future Aldi, that will not continue to be an unsafe space.

There's no direction of traffic, there's no light, there's no really for anyone turning left or right in that area.

So I have a feeling that this is going to be similar.

She made a point that no one is accessing that traveling trail from Colby Road.

No one enters it there.

They all come in off bypass into the parking lot and walk around the trail that way.

Another thing is because I have two dogs, one of which is an older dog that is not that friendly with other dogs in his space.

So that's why we don't use utilize the dog park.

The dog park has risk for biosecurity issues, dog bites, aggression, zoomatic diseases.

If you don't know what that is, it's a disease that can be spread from animal to human, such as E.

coli, salmonella, and giardia.

And so that's one of the reasons why I don't utilize a dog park, but I am able to utilize a walking trail such as the one on Colby Road.

Again, most of that area doesn't have sidewalks.

So even if I wanted to walk, I'm sorry, drive to the library and walk around that area, there's no sidewalks over there for me to utilize and to stay safe.

And then too, just the green space.

I mean that's something that we're lacking here.

We have the farmland on the other part of town, but that's farmland.

That's not public.

So even if you were to take away this green space, we would love for another green space then to be put for public use because now we're taking that away from us that we have been able to utilize.

And especially me being new to Winchester, I love it here.

My mother and I live here.

We've got a good little house, and I don't want to have to move or think about moving because I don't have access to this traveling trail.

It's a six-minute drive to my house.

I feel safe when I go there.

I'm usually alone.

So it's one of those things that I have access to that I will now not have access to.

Um which I think we all kind of share.

And then some people have mentioned on Facebook that we can go to other parks, but the Fort Bloomsboro Park is often closed and it's closed to dogs.

The one trail is only a 15-minute loop.

So even if I wanted to get a walk-in, that's only a 15-minute loop, even further outside of town with no self-service might I actually.

There's one time I just moved here, and not 20 days after I moved here, I my car broke down just five minutes outside of Brutesboro State Park, and I would not have that access to call my insurance company.

I would have gone out there at night.

Thank you for your time.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Karen Fuller.

I live in Mel Papua Drama.

Uh just want to speak on a couple of things.

One, uh, we can work in the meeting.

Okay.

My daughter manages a daycare here in town, and they utilize that walking trail with their kids.

They take kids out there, they can walk, lane, run.

It's a great area for them.

If it's gone, they can't do that.

Um the other thing I want to say tonight is that I feel like this needs to have really transparency.

And I feel that if anyone is on this board that has a familial relationship or a business relationship with the Greater Clark County Foundation, they should recuse themselves from voting on this issue.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, first of all, I'm Wendy Berriman, and I live at Second Lake View Drive, and I am my home is right side legacy.

In fact, mine has been three homes right beside Legacy.

So we have access there, and yet I drive often to the traveling trail almost day.

Um, before I go further, I just want to say, you know, in Fark County Public Schools, and I see some of my friends up there, we have learned to be committed collaborators and effective communicators.

And I just want to thank you for bearing with the public tonight.

I know that this is a difficult role you're in, and whatever you go with, I'll appreciate your time that you spent listening.

I appreciate that we have so many engaged citizens.

I'm very thankful that we have people who love our hometown so much that they'll come out and talk about this and do it respectfully.

So thank you to all of you guys.

I just want to say that.

Um I just wanted to address a couple things that uh John Ron said earlier on behalf of the Clark Foundation that you know we stand to benefit from 300 new jobs.

But if I Google jobs like little retail, $15 an hour jobs in Clark County, we have an abundance of those.

In fact, oftentimes they go unfilled.

It's very difficult right now in today's market to fill them.

When it comes to taxes, they don't add to the community.

While that's true, we do stand to benefit from the taxes.

What will it cost us in Texas to deal with all the infrastructural problems and everything that comes along with this, including, I know you know, some people around here in this very room or make a living in real estate?

You know, if we have a Nicholasville Road situation on our bypass, that might be a huge deterrent for people who would like to buy in those beautiful new houses by Southland or those beautiful new developments that John Wilson's building.

You know, we have so many nice developments going in, but if they're going to Lexington to work, wow, that's going to be tough for them.

You know, that might be an hour commute with a couple hundred workers.

Um right now there are eight stoplights.

I counted them this morning because I'm driving from Lexington Avenue down like bypass every day, and I have to leave earlier every day to try and get to work on time.

It's always a challenge.

I wanted to address one more thing that John Rock indicated is that the Greater Clark Foundation has always taken care of this property, and my understanding in police for three to fact check is that the parks and recs voluntarily took care of this for about four years free of charge.

And that they are willing to assume the acquisition of this property, if it were donated, they would maintain it.

And I'm sure that there would be community support for adding to it the things.

I can personally promise that the very group of people that were here tonight, I would organize those people and we would begin fundraising immediately if there were any opportunity there for that.

So this was my comment that I wanted to make.

I'm sure you guys are familiar with Jim Collins.

Good is the enemy of great.

And that's one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great.

People often settle for something good when excellence was a short measure away.

With some vision for the future and a great desire for excellence, we could be, we can have the best community, even better than we have now.

Is it good to bring a few jobs to Clark County?

Is it good to have another grocery store?

Absolutely.

But is it for a public?

I'm not a close to publics.

I go to Florida all the time and I'd love that store.

But is this the best place for it in Winchester?

That would make our community better.

Maybe we should ask for those looking to relocate if additional retail wholesale large box genes would make this a more attractive community, or if they would be looking for a place to decompress, like a park to take a walk in, like the Ark Redom, or in a number of other places, Masterson Station that makes Lexington a great place.

The Greater Clark Foundation has articulated in its core beliefs, and I quote we have an obligation to create a society that enables collective well-being and produces equitable power, access, opportunities, and outcomes regardless of the social conditions one is born into.

And those who do not have the financial means to acquire land can enjoy birds and trees through the parks.

It allows them to have access to better physical health and mental health and resolve many stressors in their life.

And though he didn't join me tonight, I met with the firefighter who was discussing all the PTSD from our local service people like our paramedics, our police officers, our firefighters, and let's not forget some of the most important people are veterans who would benefit from taking walks at a trail like this one.

I will leave you with this.

All the traffic from five schools, be mindful that many of those are teenage drivers like my son, a call center, two other grocery stores, and a slew of other shopping centers.

Or should we leave the good to strive for something that is excellent for our community?

Lastly, as the Greater Clark Foundation stated, love rightly understood is expressed as care for one another and as courageous action to correct injustice, including dismantling systems of injustice.

I pray that you as a board would have the courage to act in this situation.

And I would like to challenge the Greater Clark Foundation to examine how developing a property that could bring a community together that's consistent with their own vision would be the best for our community.

And if that is, I would like them to answer why New York City has left Central Park undeveloped for so much for their community when it's way more valuable than what this video is.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Pegger Swanson.

I'm 10 years old, and I live at Ninear Glenn Avenue.

I disagree that they are carrying down like the trail to like replace it with like a store or something like that, or like a road, because people use it.

Like multiple people said that they like walk their dogs there, that they like exercising there and like taking this just no place you're like for them.

And me personally, I wouldn't want to go outside and just like be wanting to go to a park and instead see buildings and roads and cars and stores, and also the fact that just tearing down more parts of nature isn't a very good idea in my head because we don't need any more, like we don't need any more stores or roads or any of that, and like we tear down so much of it already.

It's just it doesn't even make any sense to me why they're going, like why they want to replace something so beautiful like nature and just replace it with like pavement or like stores, and it's just not a good idea in my opinion.

Um that is all I really have to say.

Thank you for your time.

My name's Brad Condley.

I've been in Clark County for about 40 years, been to several planning meetings over that time, and always asked for more green space.

The one thing I don't like about Clark County is the lack of green space.

Of course, I live at 370 Jackson Ferry, so I've got plenty around me, but I've over the years I've driven by that lot hundreds of times, and had pride that Winchester had the foresight to set that aside as a water one, whatever it's walking trail, and not develop the whole bypass.

To me, that doesn't give you a good communities where you see green space.

You don't see green space in Manchester.

How many people driving through Winchester City White's park?

It's just not done.

But that space is right there in everybody's face and it's beautiful.

I heard it described as a field with a barn.

Well, you can say that about some of these horse farms around here.

They're fields with barn.

Well, that's our field with the barn, and I don't know if you knew this, one of the oldest residents of Clark County is on that property.

There's a shape of Pin Oak.

That's probably over 300 years old if you would read Tom Kimmerwork's book on Venerable Trees of Bluegrass.

It talks about trees just like that.

And it's right there in the middle, it's a beautiful globe-shaped tree, very large, and it's a part of Clark County, part of our history, and that's gonna be gone.

And I just want to come out and say that I think the park and the green space would be better for Clark County than another shopping center.

And that people private crew would see more than just my name's Laura Carpenter, I live at 2416 Ironworks Road.

Yes, I live out in the county.

I live in Winchester.

I chose Winchester to be my home.

I'm from Louisville originally.

Now there is no argument, the green space benefits the community.

We don't even have to get have an argument about that because it's just a fact.

One thing that people need to take into consideration that I'm not a public speaker, forgive me.

I wish that you all would think 10 to 20 years into the future.

That piece of green space now will become even more valuable into the future.

Do we sell off that piece of our future for short-term games of putting in another grocery store that quite frankly we don't need on in that stretch of land?

Yes, we have food deserts in our county, but that stretch of road is not the place that we need a grocery store.

Have publics come back in five or ten years when more of the other side of the county has been developed out.

That's where we need a grocery store.

On another personal note, seven years ago, I lost my arm to cancer.

Where did I go?

In Winchester.

I went to the Winchester walking trail.

That is the area that had the undulations and the space for me to build back my body.

And it also had the peace and nature to help heal my mind.

And I want that possibility for people in our future.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Maybe you should call it 23 carbon money.

Is that too loud?

You good.

Okay.

I stand amazed to watch Fayette County and Lexington.

It's one of the most beautiful places in I think in the world.

Horse farms are outstanding.

Anybody can appreciate flying in to Bluegrass or Canyon Met Farm and seeing that is just one.

Yet the attraction that it has brings in so many people.

And they have to have homes, and they have to have school, and they want more commercializations.

So to make room for them and to take care of all those needs, they tear up another horse farm.

They're going to realize someday that they've run out of horse farms.

A lot of people live here.

A lot of commercialization.

And this is a small town.

There aren't many others around that I ever run into that have a little spot like that right next to a commercial area where everyone going by hundreds of times a day.

It sounds like I-64.

And the appeal that that has, if it's destroyed, that destruction is permanent.

The folks who said where you do today, ten years from now, can't go back and reverses it.

They change their mind on what you did today.

And the choice right now is to destroy it or not to destroy it.

I walk that trail.

Hi, my name is Becky Alexander.

I live at 122, I think you, or not like the, I'm sorry, Bay Berry Lane.

You know, I was looking at some of these places where the applicant has built in Elizabeth Town, Owensboro, Louisville.

These are larger areas, 60,000 people, 600,000 people.

Um Winchester is about you know, charm, style, and beauty.

We're leaks theater, we're beer cheese, we're in light.

Thank you.

If you want you know, strike fair, if you want to come up and stay next to your microphone so you can talk next, that's fine.

It's also an else raise our hand back there.

Okay.

Hi, I'm the newcomer from Wolf and 43 Bottom Haven Avenue.

Um I appreciate what people have shared.

Um say that my number of church, which is also right there on the bridge, and our members also have concern about the runoff and water.

Um also think we talked about how humans have been fitted and dots have been put in the green space, but there's value in green space just for itself for the environment and serves as a lungs for our community with trees and the soil, and uh lots of plants and vibrant houses we see there where we walk, um all sorts of nature, you know, rabbits.

Um nature has his home there too, so if we develop that area, we're taking that.

And then finally, you know, not everyone shopping high for everyone to stand and rehear it, but I just wanted to say that there's a lot of people here, so I thought it would be nice to just for you all to see a show of hands.

Who would like to uh maintain the trial and trail as it is?

Okay.

Uh finally to I appreciate everything with the Greater Clark Foundation that's not in our community, and I think maybe they were unaware of the groundswell of supporting the park and how much it is beloved, and we maybe haven't expressed how much we appreciate it, so uh Mr.

Ron maybe asked their representative.

You could take that back to them and say if this zoning changes and approved, how much we own it and just address the commission be done.

Okay.

Anyway, if you're here, maybe let your feelings be known, writing letters to the commission, thank you to the recommendation.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else that wants to speak, you might just think of a microphone we next position on.

Thank you.

I've never been part of a comprehensive plan trying to determine future use and future growth.

Um they didn't consider was this.

And if anybody's got a brainstorm.

Well, I just had a screen in front of the house.

That's kind of what we're gonna have.

If you've got green space to get the kids out of the house, the grandkids, I didn't have a problem with that myself.

So I think it'd be detrimental to get rid of a space that gets kids out of the house, out from the screen, um, get some healthier, make some exercise.

Uh I think it would benefit us more if if ours would be to make a tough decision, not take the easy way out, and keep the keep your own space.

Maybe turn it into a park.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Nancy Kane.

I live on Locust Drive, and I am a lifelong resident of Winchester.

How many of you all are lifelong residents of Winchester on the board?

Stick your hands up.

I know Kelly is the fizz.

Okay.

Some of you are not.

Okay.

I'm gonna hit some hot points that people said.

If you've lived here in your home, you know that Coby Road cannot sustain the amount of traffic that will happen.

We also cannot afford to lose the green space.

I think Publix is a great story.

It'd be great for Winchester to have one.

Why does it have to be here?

It could be on the other side of town.

Where there are already two almost three versions.

You really need to carefully consider what we will lose if this goes ahead.

Thanks so much.

Um, I'm a McKinney Farrell and on County School of Ward, and I have so many values, so bear with me.

Um I just want to reiterate what so many people have said today, and that is that we need this green space.

You know, we don't need to just say we value green space and that we need green space.

We need the green space.

We have already lost a walking trail in that area of town.

This is the last one we have on a very selfish note.

If we lose this, I can walk my dog.

And he is very anxious in the rescue.

That's about the only place I can take him where he is not friendly or overwhelming.

And I have like spoken about this to other people who have very interesting rescue dogs, and they are coming from out of town from Lexington, Nicholasville to come to this walking trail because it is so friendly for that reason.

And they love it and they recommend it to their friends.

It is actively bringing people in and it is actively getting people outside.

No one's saying let's go for a walk on the bypass.

You know, let's go and do a heavy road.

People were saying, you know, let's go to the walking trail.

And I think that's very important.

People need to be able to enjoy the community and you know be part of Winchester, and it can't do that.

If the only thing you can go out is pick up groceries.

That's that's not a community.

I don't think it is.

So I don't know.

I I find it to be a very important place, and as you can see, we'll do and I think we need to protect that.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Laura Connolly.

I'm on two mile road.

I am from Florida from West Month.

Um, and we moved to Kentucky five years ago, and that was basically a concrete trouble.

So one of the reasons we left there was cost to live in Sweet.

Um we lived in Lexington for a little bit and then we decided to buy a house, and that was in Winchester ultimately.

We looked in neighboring counties, Richmond, or say it's Richmond, they put things like that.

Um when someone mentioned the possibility of bypass becoming another Nickelosaural, I just that's horrible.

Um my other concerns too are the pollinators that do have access to the space now.

So I mean it is mostly cleared as a green space, so there's only so much wildlife that can actually live there, but I think it's important to chairs that we do have and protect that.

Um but also it's a free space that the public can access.

And there's not a lot of places that are like that now.

So we're gonna go and spend money that we don't have.

Right?

So I think that always is a chance, the choice.

It's not the green that we need.

Good evening.

I'm Teresa Barpark.

My address is one to four Stirbridge Fine.

Uh I've been in Winchester for 55 years, I guess.

Um, and um love Winchester, and I appreciate all of you, but I'm just gonna back out uh observational interesting of all the advertising that we had for our uh walking trail.

So at one time, apparently we all really loved it, and we're never thought about um still guess like a regular turn.

But so we had this at Winchester, uh, the trailer trailer, nearly a long such way a little larger of Kentucky Bluepress.

Then we have all trails.

Winchester walking trail, easy hike.

Uh explore Winchester, Kentucky Tourism.

Talks about the walking trail.

Sending the afternoon uh walking trail, Winchester walking trail, all trails.

Um, trailing, trails and tours, Winchester, Kentucky.

Explore the trails in Winchester or Trailway.

Well, Winchester Trail Cover.

Um Pleasant Resident Earth, and it goes up.

So apparently, there was also an important or one time of auto tourism.

Perhaps please read it, Sarah.

Very carefully.

I almost felt like it's a dumb deal when I heard that it's already contract.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, they can't wrong after the thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'm gonna try to be very brief.

I do appreciate really all the public comments and concerns.

Um you've heard me say before, you know, I think this is one of the few forms where people can actually come and speak their mind.

I think a lot of times folks feel like they can't be heard when important decisions are being made.

So I do appreciate all the public input.

And I would ask you to keep in mind that you've got a lot of other public input in the form of a comprehensive plan that was developed with a lot of community members being part of that.

Elected officials who can be held accountable for their choices, uh, volunteers who don't have any SPGs that took the time to get their input, listen to their neighbors, and come up with a plan.

And that plan is the guiding document that you need to be considering tonight.

And I appreciate a lot of the concerns, but the bottom line is this is the central area of development in Clark County, and you've got a developer looking to create a first rate shopping center in the area where we've designated that type of use to take place.

I would like to correct one thing I said.

I think that Mrs.

Columbia pointed out, the entrance on the development plan is not an existing entrance.

It mirrors the entrance of the shopping center across the street, which is why I was speaking about the turnlands benefiting the existing development.

So I do want to correct that.

There is an entrance on Toby Road, it is not that entrance, it's the entrance across from the other development.

Um I do also want to highlight for you, and I know your council has told this to you numerous times.

You cannot increase excess water flow on your neighborage.

That is the law in Kentucky, and there are consequences for violating that.

That is why any large commercial development is engineered by people with professional liability insurance to make sure that that's not going to happen, uh, and that it's not going to increase that.

You either have to detain the water for a sufficient period of time or you have to retain it.

Those are the only options.

This project is like all other projects.

Stormwater has to be controlled, and a man or not to increase the runoff on neighbors.

You have very competent counsel to discuss that with you.

Another kind of thing that I want you thinking about is we actually had quite a bit of infill development in our commercial shopping centers that exist.

There is not an empty shopping center in Clark County of this size.

It just doesn't exist.

They're all currently occupied.

That shows you the demand for it.

I hear the laughing in the background, but drive up and down the bypass, and how many of those buildings are empty?

They're not.

They all have been filled.

They were filled.

There is nothing that can support what you've seen in front of you.

There is just not.

And the reality is we either grow as a community or we don't.

And our comprehensive plan seeks as a guidepost for that, that that is what the community wants.

And I know there's a lot of people here tonight who are saying something different, but that is our governing document for this type of decision.

And I would ask for you to take careful consideration of that.

Another thing that I just want to briefly mention is, you know, a lot.

There was a lot of commentary on the Greater Clark Foundation.

I can tell you that that organization remains committed to public green spaces, remains committed to convening people, having spaces for that.

I think there's a documented history of that.

Um, but I also I'm happy to have a conversation with anyone about that outside of this forum.

This isn't about the German Clark Foundation.

This is like every other application that comes before you.

You've got to be the developer who's contracted to buy a property under the condition of it being rezoned.

You all deal with that every month when you when people come before you.

That's the circumstances that always result in us being here.

And this potential developer has submitted a plan after significant expense and significant engineering work to come up with a plan that can, you know, it complies with our rules and our regulations and our guideposts.

And that is the bottom line.

And when we make decisions contrary to those things, we are not consistently sending messages to potential investors in our community.

And we have a choice.

People want publicly owned green spaces that can be maintained.

Well, guess what?

We don't have that.

We had to have another new non-profit family formed in the community to support our parts of the right.

We don't have the funding to support public green spaces.

There's a need for them, certainly.

But we have to recognize the reality as a community.

If we do not grow, we are not going to be able to fund all the things that government is responsible for.

And that's just the reality of it.

And we may not like that in the current world we live in.

And I would ask the people behind me to hold their government officials accountable for that.

I mean, the reality is we need to have a community that can be self-sustaining.

And when we have a chance to grow it in a way that our guideposts and our governing documents say we should, I would encourage you to take advantage of that.

Otherwise, we are sending a message that says we are not actually about that, and that that is not what we want as a community.

And that has consequences just like making no decisions and I have.

And I would just ask you to follow the governing documents that our community has espoused to be what it believes in, that our elected officials have approved.

And this wasn't like this was done 20 years ago.

The comprehensive plan, you know, was just approved after a very rigorous process.

And it talks about this type of development in this exact type of area, and it talks about professional office being downtown.

And I would just submit to you that I really appreciate your time.

I know that you made a special date for this application, and I know that you know it takes a lot of time and your energy to carefully consider everyone's opinions, and I certainly appreciate it.

I will answer any questions that you already have of the applicant to the best of my ability.

Thank you.

I'd like for you to discuss with them or is it a decision that's made here if it doesn't floor?

A lot of times people come in and they don't know the story.

Call me road is all.

It's been off.

But that's this probably a state, I'm guessing road that we can't control on how it is divided up in lengths.

I don't know the answer to that question.

I think that might be way above our review.

But if you could talk about the foliage or the road and let the developer know those situations to be good stewards if this does go for just simply because they don't know.

I know you knew because you're here and you have lived here and you see the area that we're talking about.

Um the water you've already addressed.

It's illegal for anything to hinder a neighbor's property.

So you've already addressed that.

You did say that the road study was already done and sent into the state.

Did I write that?

Yes, and I'm in.

That's what you gave us.

And I'm happy to share that with Mrs.

Columbia tomorrow how to go.

I was just share that with her.

Um I'm not a developer, I'm not an engineer, but if the entrance and exits could be looked at and maybe use the bypass with extra lines, I don't know.

That's just something to think about.

And what I can say to that, Ms.

Bush is I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page.

You know, this is being submitted to you tonight.

It's like every time when the transportation cabinet's involved, you know, they're way low on the totem pole, and the transportation cabinet has to improve this.

Exactly.

So it's not, you know, this is not something that has already been approved by the transportation cabinet.

I want to be clear about that.

They haven't said that what's been submitted is sufficient, they have not ever stamped it, it has to be approved.

They may put an additional condition of a life.

They will make their own determinations with their own engineers about what is suitable for this development.

I appreciate you.

Thank you.

The Greater Clark Foundation, was that land uh public land or gifted to them?

No.

Here's what I would tell you, and I I don't want this to be a discourse on the Great Clark Foundation because quite frankly, we'll be here quite a lot longer.

But what I can tell you is any time a nonprofit entity uh ceases to exist, the assets from that entity have to go to another nonprofit company.

That's just the way it has to be done.

There are examples all over the country of nonprofit community hospitals being sold, and these what they're called legacy health foundations coming into existence.

That is what has to happen.

That transfer of assets is approved by the attorney general's office.

That's literally the only legal way that that can take place.

I think what people are talking about is there are circumstances where community housing, community hospitals were funded either by local, state, or government or federal funds.

And sometimes in those instances, those assets do go to the government.

It is illegal for nonprofit companies' assets to go to the government when it happens.

That's just an illegal transfer.

It can't, it's contrary to IRS regulations.

So that is not, it's just not accurate.

I know that's a widespread myth that it's existed in our community since the foundation of the Grand Clark Foundation, but that's just legally a nonprofit, and you can rely on your own counsel for that, it'll tell you the same thing.

But it can't happen.

I appreciate that.

But I just want to clarify for myself as well for all community members going to the council that is the case.

This was not public plan if it to the mayor of our foundation.

Okay.

Yeah, I've got the real estate file while the hospital acquired this property.

They did pay the hospital did pay for this property.

I believe it was in 1997, 1990, late 96, 97 when it closed.

And the hospital did purchase this property.

It was not gifted.

I appreciate it, though.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Hold on the floor.

Mr.

Jeffries, before it comes to the board, will you please reiterate?

Because I've heard two segments that's before this board that are not true.

This is not about green space going to business.

Will you please reiterate exactly what's before us tonight?

And that is talking about the zone change from professional and what that means to the business.

Either one will have the same result.

That is what's before us, and I think there just may be some confusion on that because that's not what is before us this evening.

Yeah, so property is currently their own professional office.

And we we in the beginning of the staff report we listed the different uses that could be permitted in the professional office zone that you know, those those uses are um single family, multi-family, some small retail dogs offices, dentists, you know, these different types of things, schools, um, these different uses can be permitted on the property as it exists today.

So if somebody sent the development plan to staff showing one primary structure on a lot, um consisting of any of those uses, it could be approved without a public hearing.

They can develop it without a public hearing as well as it meets that minimum requirement.

There's not more than one primary structure on a single lot or parcel.

Um and so if if that was the wish of the current owner, you know, to sell to a developer and develop it in that way.

It could it could be developed without a hearing like this.

So it's it's fortunate that we have an opportunity to bring this development plan to a hearing like this so we can discuss it and how it can affect potentially affect our community.

And so what's before the finding commission is to rezone what's currently professional office to general business or yeah, general business, our meeting for business district.

Um and so that will allow for a lot more different uses that we currently see along the bypass or near the bypass.

Um in this case, they're proposing a anchor grocery store, but also five out parcels that could consist of a lot of the same uses that we discussed today.

Um restaurants, um, entertainment and centers, um, you know, retail, uh, different things.

Fast food dining.

Um, and so one could look at this as an opportunity for Winchester Clark County, but also I think we all understand how we are losing what is currently being used as a as a trail, a trail system for Clark County.

And so it's important that we discuss this, right?

Because this is something that I don't think anyone would disagree that's important for a community to thrive, and we need to have recreational as long as well as remote, so both is important.

Um other clarifications you like.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I would like to say uh reference earlier, there was a title of the sample motion.

So when when it is time to entertain, I'm not saying that times now, but when it is time to discuss the same motion or entertainment motion, um, where it talks about the findings, uh future language map found within the 2024 conference of plan identifies the property for public semi-public use based on what was anticipated.

It says 1997, but public semi-public was introduced in the 2004 document.

So if that language is used, make sure that it's updated from 1997 to 2004.

Um prior to 2004, it was it was anticipated for uh professional office, and then prior to that it was anticipated for commercial.

Oh, so it's this here, and I think Mr.

Ron reference it earlier that I corrected myself as I read this down before.

So 2004 was when it was changed to public or semi-cover and then offering for any other discussion on that.

Any other questions?

There are green space in Winchester Park and right now.

Um I don't have the current number for square footage of green space, but I do have a calculation of the trail systems.

Um not sure if it consists of all of them, but I contacted the Joy S department and Stephen Barry does a great job with you know mapping everything we have.

Um so I asked them to look and see if that the current walking trail systems that we have.

So we looked at legacy growth, the traffic trail and the college park.

And so legacy road was 5,200 feet, traffic trail is 4,650, so that's the current trailer and college park, the loop there is 2,090, and so that's a total of 11,940 for trailing.

And I think what we could we've also could have included uh uh BCTC in that calculation, so I don't have that that that number um if there are any other trailers.

I know that there used to be a trail just down the street on Wingsboro, which is no longer there, so um you know there's I'm sure there's even more out there that I could have asked to get very back to us, but those are the main things.

Question, possible motions.

Um, I'd like to make a motion to forward a recommendation to the government body to approve the zone map amendment to rezone 29.67 acres located at 2020 by pass road and 722 Holy Road from professional office P1 to General Business B4.

Based on the fact that the property is located along the main commercial thoroughfare of Winchester Clark County, where retailers, food services, grocery stores, department stores, and the like are found.

The future land use map found within the 2024 comprehensive plan identifies the property for future for uh the future land map found within the 2024 comprehensive plan identifies the property for uh public semi-public use based on what was anticipated in the 2004 comprehensive plan after the property was reselled in 1990 for a potential hospital site.

The future land use map has not changed since.

However, the hospital never relocated to the site and has been vacant and used for a walking trail ever since.

The property has been identified as commercial and professional office and previous future land use maps, 1990 and 1997.

The property is changing hands, and the new owners would like to use the property for commercial use and it as it was originally intended.

Finding the existing P1 zoning classification inappropriate and the proposed B4 zoning classification appropriate for this site.

Um from Mr.

Raw and from our motion on the floor to approved there or second and the second and motion second on the floor is any other discussion on the motion.

Yeah, yeah.

Motion passing.

You guys suck.

How many people say it's all it takes?

So this is actually commissioned to be an opportunity.

Please understand.

Thank you.

I'm very on the agenda.

I'm very gene's review zone, and then you look at the property re-on the back three parcels, parcel three A, four A, five A.

Okay, and the property addressed at 247 bar roads from A1 agriculture to R1C single family residential.

And the consolidation of the three parcel for the use of the single family residence is how we say that.

Alright, this time on the agenda, I think the applicants have been the zoning map and an application to rezone the point seven six three acres for the back three parcels, parcels 3A, 4A and 5A from agriculture to single family residential on the C, and then to consolidate those parcels for single family residential.

Originally the back three parcels were subdivided and intended to be consolidated with adjoining parcels and not to be conveyed separately.

That's noted on the record platinum in March 11th, 1999.

If the consolidation time is approved, access to the 0.763 acre single family lot, so that's after the consolidation.

Access to that consolidated lot will be granted by 12 foot access easement connecting to open tour road, which is shown on the new flat.

The planning commission will need to review and approve the consolidation plat with the proposed access easement.

You can see that that front portion of the property that's currently anticipated for commercial.

So it is currently still zoning agriculture.

So that the zone of district did not have to change.

But it's the back three parcels here.

And originally they were anticipated to be purchased maybe by the adjoining properties and then consolidated.

But they were never consolidated again.

And they have not been consolidated to the joint same thing properties.

And then the proposed zoning classification R1C.

This is also in the staff report, listing the different uses that we committed in the single family residential zoning district.

As well as the same chapters or articles from KRS chapter 100 from different copies of the back that the planning commission we have looked for in order to do and approve this this type of request.

I'm sorry, I was hard to hear that noise.

So you're saying that the front part is already commercial.

That's where the very house used to be in the Legs.

So if you look at the plaque, I'll do my best to bring it up overhead as well.

But the plat does a good job of describing the consolidation.

And so the back three parcels on the plat, the current parcel lines are shown in a kind of hatched out line.

And the new proposed parcel lines are installed.

And these are little Z or ZACs kind of identify that that bash line will be abolished or done away with.

So the back two and a portion of the front would be consolidated, and a portion of that front would stay at, say the 1.58 acres will stay out and be consolidated to the front property that's still some agriculture today.

And then maintain control.

And then you mentioned how this is not just an easement.

So roughly where the driveway currently is, there'd be an access easement and access to the back parcel.

That traditionally is seen more so some of the grandfathered lots that are in the county, you know.

Um a property zone R1C, more than likely that property is going to have some what some of some road front.

Yeah, some access to public road.

And again, these back three parcels have existed for 25 miles years.

And um currently our zoning agriculture and the flat identified those parcels as being combined with some of the neighboring properties.

The problem is a lot of those neighboring properties are zoned R1C in the family.

So you can't combine an act property with an R1C family property without rezoning at first.

Um that may be one of the reasons why it's kind of happened earlier, and so when the new property we purchased it within the last couple of years, um they purchased the front parcel with the back three parcels with it, and uh he could have consolidated them all together, that could have been an option.

Um, but doing it this way will allow him to build his residence in the back of the property and will reside easier if he needs to speak about this, and then uh continue to operate his business towards the front.

Um so it's uh it's a unique one, and that's why staff couldn't approve it outright if I had a planning commission.

You know, the plan itself needs to be approved by the planning commission as well as the rezoning.

Mr.

Rellani, you see anything that would be a controversy about what's just right.

Mr.

Gallage.

Is the advocate on any attorney here?

Good evening, Mr.

Chair.

I hope that you'll excuse the way I look.

I was teaching at the University of Kentucky.

I teach a law class, and I thought there's no way that Mr.

Romp will keep them hostage for two hours.

So I didn't change on the way in.

So and then I got here, I had time to go take a shower.

Um we are here on this particular case, and in my 31 years, this is the first time I've ever seen this happen.

But Mr.

Aldrich and his wife purchased this property from the Vaughan estate, and Jimmy Vaughn, as you all know, ran a uh greenhouse in there.

And Mr.

Vaughn, like everyone who when the development started, saw cow means go in and said, you know what?

I'm gonna I'm gonna give these people what they want.

I'm gonna give them huge backyards, and so he created 11 lots that run directly behind what is now next levels landscape building, and he stuck those lots in there with the thought of each of these people on county's are going to be so excited about having these big lots, they're gonna pay me big money, and I'm going to cash in.

The problem is only the person on lot number four bought.

The other ten were not sold.

So when Mr.

Aldridge got this, he couldn't buy lots five, six, seven, eight, nine because this person had bought this one, and I don't know what we're gonna do with those lots or what Mr.

Vaughn's estate's gonna do with that lot.

So, what we're asking to do is Mr.

Aldridge uh put up a nice structure out there.

If you've driven out there, he's got a nice structure, he's got a landscape business that has grown exponentially.

And what he's asking to do is that he's asking you all to make the change for as you can see there, the the top the lot number three, two, and then part of this first one to allow him to live where his business is.

Uh, it's not going to increase any any density.

We're asking that it be changed to R1C so that it is in conformity with counties.

Um, and it's also going to allow him to put a structure on there so he will be there when to watch over his landscape business.

Uh the the means of access is going to be through an existing road, uh, an easement that goes back there.

Uh, this is you know, we could have can tried to consolidate everything to commercial.

He didn't want to do that.

Uh, and all we're doing is we're just asking for this zoning change, which will allow us his house will be on a lot that is conducive with and in accordance with the attorney property.

It's you know, hopefully um you all can see that he he's he's trying to do the right thing.

This is a situation that he just when he bought it, it was a little more complex than we thought.

So we would just ask that the we'll answer any questions you've got as to how why, but we just ask him that it be uh that upper party zone uh separately.

No questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in an obvious that we should speak either for or against this proposal?

See now our closed forward public and I'm not issued impossible discussion, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to make a motion.

Thank you.

I make a motion to forward a recommendation to everybody to approve the zone and amendment to resign the 0.763 acres consisting parcel five A, parcel 4A, portion of Marshall 3A, located behind the property address at 2417 open to a ready based on the fact that the martial genify is a single family resident on the future land use map in the 2024 comprehensive plan.

Second second commissioner, any other discussion on the motion.

No discussion on your voice.

Yeah, it would have to be done by you just because of the uniqueness of this plan.

So Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

I'd like to finish the motion for the consolidated plan.

I make a motion to approve the record platform, consolidate martial.

I'll add martial 4A and portion of March 3A formated 076 anchor anchorage property located in parcel three as well as the consolidated remainder of Marshall 3A with Marshall 1A.

Form heading the 1.235 acreage property minus march one and addressing the 2417 open road as shown on the map that we put back.

Parcel three is approved with the description access easement giving access to open as a motion for the consolidation plan is our second.

That second conclusion is any discussion on consolidation plan.

Schedule.

So we're looking at January 6th, uh for January, February 3rd, March 3rd, April 7th, May 5th, June 2nd, July 7th, August 4th, September 1st, October 6th, November 10th, and December 1st.

Do you guys see any red flags?

Anything that we need that I maybe overlooked or didn't consider.

Yeah, we need to uh make a motion to accept the 2026 calendar meetings.

I'd like to motion to accept motion commissioner.

Commissioner's admit any other discussion on the cabinet.

See now favorite A.

Any opposed a motion access.

I don't have any uh I think it's good that we're tabling the tax amendment that's gonna give uh the downtown business owners time to review it to you.

So I'll forward this on to the uh associate in my office that works closely with the downtown businesses.

And so if anybody uh if it's not already on the radar, it will be on the radar next month.

That's the only comments I really have.

Um I know before the the the meeting, uh Ms.

Bush had asked about the development plan for the uh development on the bypass and told me do we need to make a motion to we don't know so that's that with a new update with the development plan regulations and the KRS statutes that we came out here with recently with that can be approved by staff as long as we need you don't make a motion for that?

Yeah, I made a motion for the thank you all.