We're going to stay until 9 o'clock.

I just ask anyone planning to speak to be mindful of what they're saying and be respectful of everyone else's time.

And our goal is to get through everything we can tonight.

So with that, we'll call the meeting to order and move to approval of minutes from January 6th meeting.

Is there any comments, questions, concerns, changes, amendments?

Motion.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, nay.

Motion passes.

Next, we'll move into item number three, our treasurer's report.

We should have been email with the financial reports, and there are no bills to approve for payment.

Any questions for Cam or possible motion?

Motion to approve.

Financials as read.

We have a motion and a second to approve the Treasure's report.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion passes.

Next we'll move into new business item number four to invite the public to be heard for any item not on our agenda tonight.

There's anyone that'd like to speak for anything not on our agenda.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, so we have a microphone to the left.

Again, we apologize for the lack of mics tonight.

We're making do as best we can without IT staff here at the school.

So there was a snow day or NTI day today, so we're making do.

Excuse me, with all the new housing that's going in on Boone's Portal Road.

What consideration has been done to the about the traffic flow?

Sir, that's uh public hearing B.

So if you could say for comments to them, we'll let you get up then and come up with people and we talk about that item.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Anything not on our agenda tonight.

Okay.

We'll move into first public hearing A, reviewing a zone map amendment proposing to rezone the 407-acre property located at 1675 band meter road from agriculture to plan development.

Uh before we move in, I guess we need to table the motion and remove it from the table.

Correct.

I'd like to make a motion to remove it from the table from last meeting and place it back on the agenda.

Second.

We have a motion and second to remove from the table.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose nay.

Motion passes.

Turn it over to Rob for the staff report.

All right, so this item was on the agenda last month.

It was to review the zone map amendment for 1675 banmeter road, the total of 407 acres.

What was reviewed last month was uh was a request to rezone it to plan development or PD.

Um the applicant submitted a zoning map amendment application to rezone the 407 agriculture 400 seven acres currently zone agriculture again located at 1675 band meter road from A1 to PD.

The applicant narrative and property deep containing the legal script legal description are attached.

The property shown on the future land use map as being anticipated for planned community neighborhood.

Um that that land description is included in the staff report, and basically there is no zoning district that has been identified or called out for plan community neighborhood.

Um but what it does say in the staff in a comprehensive plan and anything that's rezoned that has been identified to plan community neighborhood in the comprehensive plan and plan development would be the zoning district that would be more in line with that with that land use designation.

Um so that's what the applicant has decided to do is to go for the PDE zoning district.

Um in the staff report we have KRS chapter 100.213.

Those are findings necessary for proposed map amendments, and so some of the things the planning commission needs to look for is um spelled out in this article, and so before a planning commission uh can or sorry, before a map amendment is granted, the planning commission or the legislative body or fiscal court must find that the map amendment is in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan, or in the absence of such finding that one or one or more of the following apply, and such findings shall be recorded in the minutes and records of the planning commission or legislative body.

And so one of those would be that the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate, or that the property proposed or that proposed zoning classification is appropriate.

And which have substantially altered the basic character of such area.

Also in the staff report is Keras Chapter 100.275 going over to subdivision plots and development plans and some of the recent changes made to that.

With the map request, his own map request, they've submitted a development plan.

That's one of the main reasons why the application was tabled.

And so I'll pull up that development plan on screen.

There we go.

And so if you look on the development plan, the different areas that have been designated for each that purple, that uh kind of the pinkish purple area that has been identified for I1, so light industrial.

And then the darker purple areas are for your B4, I'm sorry, your R4 use, and then the light kind of peach color, uh they have identified for single family R1D, and then there's uh the larger, I guess another shade of purple in the rear of the building or the rear of the property would be your R1C designation.

Um, and then the applicant has their attorney here, legal counsel to speak on on behalf of the applicant.

If we have any other additional questions for that.

Our map is turned the other way.

So where is rolling heels?

We can't see it.

All right.

So rolling hills would be in this direction right here.

So this is Van Meter Road.

Oh my goodness.

So Van Meter Road runs along here.

Um we have WMU on this side and the Soccer Complex as well.

Right.

Further, so if you're heading to rolling hills, you're heading in this direction.

Um where was the residential?

So we have this is your R1D single family, your R1C single family, and I guess on the screen it looks more of a gray color.

That's your the multi-family or R4, and then this color, uh, whatever you want to call it, purple is pink, is what they've identified for I1 or light industrial.

So that would be light of this for what they're supposed to exactly.

So any other questions for Ralph.

Can I buy you?

Come on.

I didn't mean to be presumptuous, Mr.

Chair.

I was just trying to know you had a time limit.

Uh we appreciate you all tabling this to allow a development plan to come together.

This is uh development plan, and as we stated last time, and I will just everything that I said last time I would just like to be incorporated into the record for this one, but uh what we're looking at is plan development.

This has been plan development for 30 years.

We have some larger areas, some larger lots here closer to the beginning of Bay meter, then as we move down the density gets a little uh more, and then at the end we've got this light uh industrial because it is close to WMU's plant, uh so it'll be closest to the wastewater plant as far as trying to figure out sewer to uh manufacture or that's manufacturing uh to get that sewage uh and water waste out of that.

So I think we followed all the plans that we've got.

We've identified the entrances to the various different uh areas that I think there are four along uh band meter road.

I know that a question came up last time by a gentleman about what about the traffic.

Well, this is a state road, and this is a preliminary development plan.

So as you all know, before anything can come to pass, you know, we would have to present a final development plan for any particular portion that gets done, and then that issue, as you all know from your December hearing, you know, there'll be traffic studies that can be ordered.

We would get permission from the state, we would get approval from the state.

But this has been plan development for the last 30 years, and we would just ask that all we're trying to do is bring that to a fruition.

We do have the engineer, the owner, and uh Mr.

Thompson who helped who's been in development since the 70s helped us to kind of lay out this plan if you all have any questions specifically about the manner in which this is laid out.

Any questions for the applicant from the commission?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your time, and I'll try to keep this brief.

My name is Will Mayer, I'm the executive director of Clark Coalition.

Clark Coalition Commission is to advance smart growth, sustainable economic development, and government transparency in Winchester Park County.

I also happen to be a co-owner of the property across Van Dill Road from this development.

Very simply, what's been submitted by the applicant concerning 1675 Van Meter Road does not conform to the subdivision regulations or the adopted 2024 comprehensive plan.

The preliminary development plan shall include building locations and dimensions, parking lots and sidewalks, easements, including the location width and purpose and utilities, among others, those are all missing in this submission.

It's not in compliance.

As you all are well aware, the community spent well over a year, really closer to two years updating this comprehensive plan.

Between this update and the previous one, we've spent a hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer money to craft a plan to say how we want to see this community develop.

But one of the basic principles of planning and zoning is to keep separate incompatible uses.

Nowhere in the description of planned community development in the comprehensive plan, does it contemplate including industrial zone?

You know, it talks about having a mixture of different types of densities and also including things to meet the needs of the data, uh, the data name needs of the residents, including restaurants and convenience stores.

That's what's meant by planned community development, including these different types of uh zoning units.

You know, another problem with this submission is, and this is from the comprehensive plan is streets.

A critical component I'm quoting of the development plan will be that the development must be focused on internal street network and not on the adjacent arterials.

What you have here is basically a collection of cul de sacs that are minimally connected and direct outflow traffic onto the arterials.

Quotes some type of visual or physical landscape buffer needs to be provided along the arterials to complement efforts to maintain the visual scenic integrity of the arterial corridors.

Additionally, a rural transition area must be provided for the portion of the property adjacent to the urban planning boundary by providing an area of large lots in this area or providing common green space for the development along this boundary.

This transition is intended to provide more compatible density to the adjacent agricultural property.

In this case, there's over 1,600 linear feet along Van Meter Road that is the urban planning boundary.

And there's no mention, there's no indication of any kind of transition area or buffering.

And I'll just, you know, I'll touch briefly, and I'm going to submit this for the record so you all can see it as well.

But there are a couple aspects of this submission that just don't make good sense from a planning perspective.

If you want to have industrial, you know, and I'm not saying that that's appropriate for a planned community neighborhood, but shouldn't it be located adjacent to the existing industrial park with access on rolling hills?

What you have on Van Meter, and I don't know, I hope all of you travel down Van Meter, whether going to a soccer game or out driving the rural road, there's a very sharp turn immediately underneath a railroad overpass.

It's a it's an over 40 degree turn.

And so you're talking about directing industrial traffic, semi-trucks around that turn.

The width of the road there is 21 feet.

To navigate that turn, a semi-truck has to use the entire roadway.

This is a roadway that's used by school buses, by residents, passenger cars, and you know, kids go into soccer.

It's it's simply not a good place to direct industrial traffic.

I think between in conclusion, the submission not meeting the subdivision regulations, not conforming with the adopted comprehensive plan, and not adhering to the basic principles of good planning and zoning.

Uh I would urge you to deny this application at this time and encourage the applicant to resubmit something that conforms to our community's land use regulations.

I'm happy to submit this.

These are pictures.

And this is just one example, but it comes from Lexington's urban growth management plan, and it concentrates the higher density development on a main road, a new road going through the development, and then it's medium density and you know less density going out from that.

So I would encourage you to you know just encourage the development of the community in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

I'm happy to answer any questions for the record.

Thank you.

Just let them hold it.

I think it's up straight.

I think what it is the way to the microphone weighs down the pole.

So if you hold it up, if you if it goes up straight, it won't hang back down.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item?

I would just like to rebut this briefly if I could, Mr.

Chair.

Once we get down public comments, anyone else like to speak?

Okay, this time the applicant, sorry.

No, no one be sure.

Uh I appreciate Mr.

Mayor's comments.

Um the only thing I would say is that the plan development district, which is a comprehensive plan, and I know that Mr.

Mayor's father was actually on the comprehensive plan and voted for the language that's contained in this, says uses permitted plan development project for residential, professional office, commercial, or light industrial uses.

So what you see there is everything that the comprehensive plan says verbatim.

I mean, there is residential, there's commercial, there's some light industrial, and you know, as opposed to, well, this is not a good plan.

I think all of us really want a plan that looks like hamburgers because it has lots of great access.

I mean, it's easy to get around.

This is not Lexington, and the fact is that we don't want to be Lexington.

And what we're looking at is a planned development district that's been available for 30 years that says this is going to be planned development.

We meet all the criteria that's in there.

And uh, you know, we don't put all the the buildings.

Well, we're trying to get this thing zoned plan development so that we can market it.

And as you all know, before anything's going to be done, we've got to come back to you all.

I mean, we had the discussion last time you all did a plan development before that didn't have anything on it, and you've done that.

And you've done that.

We we have complied with everything that you wanted.

We've shown the streets, we've shown the cul de sacs, we've shown where the roads are going to be, we showed the elevations, we've shown what planning districts they are.

We believe that it is in conformity and just ask it.

Uh this commission would vote to approve it.

Thank you.

This time we'll open the floor up to the commission for discussion and motion.

Some clarification to me.

Um, yeah, what was he quoting?

I feel like there's a little bit of uh disparity between is that the full language is here, and then we were hearing the language from his report, uh, what language would be quoted there just so you can kind of keep their thoughts off each other.

Yeah, so there's two things that were quoted.

We had uh well, we had the zoning ordinance that was quoted, the suburbs and regulations that was quoted, and also the attendate of the land use designation description of the comp plan.

And so what I'll start with is a land use description of the comp plan.

So this is for the land designation entitled Plan Community Neighborhood.

And the second paragraph, it says the plan community neighborhood land use designation does not require the creation of a new zoning district.

That was what I was trying to explain earlier, and I did the gist of that.

I I feel um and it says all developments proposed for lands within this designation will require rezoning to and compliance with the planned development zone requirements, and so that's what I was trying to say earlier, too.

Is that there's not a district called Plan Community Neighborhood, but if something's been identified for planning community neighborhood, then it needs to meet the requirements for planning plan development, um, the plan development district.

And so I understand what was said about you know whether or not it is or isn't smart to include light industrial in a planned community neighborhood designation.

Um I will say that that second paragraph again states that it was required for it to be rezoned to plan development and meet the requirements for plan development, and what I said earlier was in the planned development district, light industrial is allowed.

Um, and so um you can take uh multiple interpretations of this.

I feel I can see where somebody might think, well, we probably shouldn't include light industrial in a planned community neighborhood, but then if it says be rezoned to PD and meet the requirements for PD, light industrial will be permitted in the PD, you know, but it always goes before this body before it's permitted.

Um I totally understand when it comes to traffic.

I think there's a lot of older parts of our near of our of our community who adjoin or abut industrial uses, and unfortunately, a lot of that traffic cuts through that their residential neighborhood.

So when you think about if we're going to approve a plan that's going to have light industrial, where is that traffic going to go and how is it going to affect a single family neighborhood?

And so um putting it near or closer to the industrial park is smart, it's smart planning.

I'm not going to deny that.

You know, I think that was a good comment.

Um, and it's something to consider here.

Uh, the other things that were quoted, um we have article 8.6 development plan out of zoning ordinance.

So it talks about the intent and purpose of a development plan.

It doesn't really go into detail as to what is required for a preliminary plan in the zoning ordinance.

We have to turn to the subdivision regs for that.

And in 820 of the sorry, 420 of the development plan and subdivision regulations, it it does have a breakdown of what is required for a preliminary development plan.

That was shared with the applicant and their engineer uh so that when they were drafting this, that they would have that.

Um you know, there's no doubt in my mind that this area has been identified for planned community neighborhood for the last 30 or more years.

It's been in every comprehensive plan that I can find, and uh is what we use when updating the comprehensive plan in 2018 and in 2024.

Um so if we want to, and I can understand where you know developers may not, you know, at this point in time they're not developing it.

There's no plans to develop it, right?

Correct at this time, um, but you want to market it so that you can sell it to a developer.

Um that plan that the developer presents to us will have all those details, right?

Um, and it may not look anything like this.

So, Bobby, you know, I think we might need to take time to discuss, you know, what is needed at this point in time for the rezoning, knowing that we're gonna have more details brought to this body later.

Right.

Well, I think that depends entirely on how strictly the commission wants to import section 420 of the subreddit.

Uh Mr.

Mayor is correct that we need written very uh specifically requiring things that in my personal opinion are not normally uh available necessarily at this stage of the proceeding tonight's application is the perfect example.

They're going to market the property, so they may know the general zoning of the property, so they may know the street layout, but to know uh for example in industrial especially, how could they possibly know the uh whether that will be uh 10 industrial units or 25.

So uh it is not uncommon for subregs to require the kind of specificity that Mr.

Mayor is requesting.

I don't believe that that has been the uh historic practice of this commission, and to be candid, I don't think it's the historic practice most of it, but technically the regulation do require so Mr.

Cullen, are you saying that it would it meets the qualifications at this point?

Well ultimately that's your call.

I I certainly think uh more information has been provided tonight than prior applications this commission has considered and approved.

And you know, we it's kind of a it it places the developer in a untenable position.

You can't market the property uh significantly until you have it zone, and other than going to a horrendous expense and bring in a development plan that met every line, sidewalks, utilities, lot sizes, rock locations, uh only to then have the new buyer come in with a completely different layout.

Obviously, this commission would have to approve it, but there's uh uh there's a balancing act that I can't make.

I I can tell you that your off decisions in the past have not required any more information in tonight's applicant if you if you strictly held them to what is in the subdivision regulations, they have not fully complied.

And so with comments that were made tonight about industrial zoning, I mean I think it's fair, you know, that that's something that we need to do.

I think that's a fair argument, but I think what Mr.

Mayor, this is you know, the plan development zone is tricky enough for me because you really don't know what it's going to be.

It could be a lot of different things.

And then when you throw the planned community neighborhood in on top of it, Mr.

Mayor is right, uh a plan community neighborhood is not to include industrial, but a planned community neighborhood is to be within the planned development zone, which is being sought tonight, and it does in fact allow for industrial.

So I I think their application to that extent is fine.

Now, as far as uh the observation that the industrial might not be in the right place, that's uh that's a whole different issue.

But as far as it being in a PD zone with a plan community neighborhood, I think that's fine.

Well, like so if the planning commission wanted to entertain any contingencies tonight where if in the future, whenever it is ready for development, and somebody proposes a plan development project, including these uses that the light industrial use would be located more towards the rear and have a connection point to rolling hills instead of band meter.

I mean that that could maybe resolve that concern.

Sure.

So on the uh comprehensive plan, it is designated as planned community neighborhood, right?

Correct.

So it shouldn't have industrial is uh so and then that's if you read it in our conference plan, it doesn't list industrial unless it's commercial, but doesn't list industrial.

Um but I think where where there's kind of a hang up is the planned development zoning district does, and it says in the comp plan it needs to be rezoned and meet the requirements for a PD zone.

So it's kind of it's not so does that mean we're just made a facts uh that means when we're ready to update the comp plan next, we need to tackle that.

That we need to clarify that yeah.

Um so is this which is this considered P D or there's some little for plant development.

So it's should be it's identified yes, it's identified for development of the planned community neighborhood, which requires it to be rezoned PD.

But wouldn't it have made better sense to do it as PD?

There is no PD land use designation in the comp plan.

Plan community neighborhood and plan interstate employment center, I think.

Um and so if you're identified for those two uses, those two land use designations, you're required to rezone it to PD.

So we know your request is from A1 agricultural continue plan development.

Correct.

So if that is that if we can't hold them to the plant needs as long as it's come from the industrial allowance.

But no, I think if you approve that development plan, they would have to bring changes back for your approval.

Right.

But just knowing in advance that's according to competency plan, we shouldn't have industrial on this land, right?

But here's again, there's another I see the I see the argument, and um to be honest, I doubt I doubt this scenario was ever considered.

Um but the fact of the matter is the uh planned community neighborhood must be in PD property, and PD property clearly authorizes like uh considered.

It it is uh uh not unlike a lot of regulations when they hit uh the street and are applied to real world situations, they they create these kinds of issues that Rob says probably needs to be addressed at some time in the future.

But but I think there's something to um with our updates that we made uh in regards to Keras chapter 100, the development plans are approved by staff.

And so in this case, planning commission would approve the rezoning, and if there's any any variances with the development plan, the planning commission would approve the variances, but then staff would then you know sign off.

So basically what I'm saying is if if you guys feel like this is proper zoning, and then if you feel like the planning the that you need to direct staff not to approve the preliminary uh plan until they meet all the requirements, then I'll do that.

I won't approve the preliminary plan until they meet all the requirements.

Is that fair to say, Bobby?

I guess my concerns personally are I wouldn't want to go against the actual comprehensive plan, knowing that it could go against what the community desired.

Right.

So that would be my goal is to not do that to give them the designation that it should be approved by staff and not come before us as long as they approve the plan development, that would be a concern, right?

Yeah, and so as long as it here's the plan, so that's the thing if it adhere is a plan development, and so adhering to plan development will be a mixture of residential, commercial, and light industrial, right?

Um I think because it is identified for planned community neighborhood, you know.

We have the planning commission wanted to say we want to see this as a planned community neighborhood meeting all the developments that's outlined in that description in the 2024 comp.

Is there a way to prevent them from having light industrial like a binding element saying no light industrial on this BD property?

It means tonight's afternoon.

Yeah, certainly you could ask them if they would think to land it, but uh the the problem is from the commission standpoint is I think we're bound by our regulation, and our regulation is it's kind of a uh chicken in the egg argument, but our regulation requires a planned community development to be in a PD zone, and a PDG zone clearly calls for industrial.

Now, what the drafter uh of the original uh land use map intended when they said this was going to be a planned community neighborhood.

I don't did they envision that I'm sure they did, but uh that's always that's obviously mark four is the kind of green out here in that area.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, if I made this one place, just pretty much you know we we're doing a we're jumping through a lot of gymnastics, and and you may not like the way it is.

My dad said if everybody liked the same thing, we'd all be married to the same one.

But the fact is this is a design that we want uh you all have a you approved Sam Williams on veterans and didn't have anything.

You approve Hagen Codell's and didn't have anything.

We tabled this, we agreed to table this, and we have brought you one that is in compliance with what needs to happen for planned development.

And all we're asking is we just we don't want any special consideration, we want the same consideration that this planning and zoning commission has done for years.

And this is more in depth than a lot of what comes on here.

A lot of times you just get a drawing on the outside or an aerial photo and something drawn in it.

You know, the the traffic issue, that's something that's going to be taken up with the state when it's ready.

If you all want to put a provision that says that it that the any development plan won't be approved unless Mr.

Jeffries says that it meets the criteria, I'm fine with that.

But as far as trying to put some binding enforcement or binding element on there that says you can't have industrial, I don't know if you all know, but the industrial park is running out of space.

And this is right adjacent to it.

In fact, here later on, you're going to hear about a piece of property that is in the industrial park that just got zoned from the Hagen Codell that we're asking for a plan development on it.

And it was it was approved with nothing.

And you all approved it, and you voted in unanimous and it passed the fiscal court and nobody raised a stink about it.

And all we're asking for is we provided a whole lot more than that.

We meet the criteria for plan development, which is what we've asked to, and we just want this to be approved as presented.

Mr.

Gallett, the legality purposes, what do you see?

Ma'am, what I see is that the historical first fact you tell me that we have never regularly enforced all the requirements of a development plan.

I'm sorry, preliminary.

Preliminary development plan.

And again, uh I just don't think all that while certainly the argument can be made and required by the tech.

I do not believe it's practical in most applications at this date to felt just to confirm one five things because I recognize what um they argue is having acquired it, and we should try to be consistent.

Um is there a way that if this gets zoned as uh development right that it will not come before us at a later date if it is a staff and approved it?

Well, because it's planned development, it will come before this body.

Um you know there is no minimum requirement saying that if there is a minimum requirement of of front side rear setbacks, density requirements, you know, so forth.

Well, that's the objective statement that other 1275 will bring you bill crack and that'll be it's my consents.

If you know it's coming back, this is a preliminary development plan.

That's what required.

If it does climb development, we can quote it to it, I guess the way it goes.

I mean, and correct me if I'm bought if I'm wrong, Bobby, but I feel like you could even require them to bring back a another preliminary development plan to this body before they bring back the final.

You know, the one that meets the more stringent requirement of the subdividment.

I think you could probably not practical review.

What is the pleasure of the commission?

Is there a possible motion?

I make a motion to forward a recommendation to the governing body to approve the zone map amendment to rezone the 47 acres located in 1675 road from agricultural A1 to Plan Development PD based on the fact that the future land use map found within the Clark County Winchester Clark County comprehensive plan anticipates the use of this property as planned community neighborhood and require the recycling and compliance with the plan development zone requirements.

Second any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye opposed, nay.

I'm going to abstain.

So we have one upstation.

No, no, I'm going to just extend that's not vote.

Yeah, so uh Bobby can guide you like abstaining would mean it goes with the obstacle.

Motion passes.

Next, we'll move into public hearing B.

I'm gonna step down for this one due to being an adjoining property owner, and I'll turn it over to Bill to chair this in.

And I'll turn it over to Bill to chair this hearing.

Item B on the agenda is to review the final subdivision flat for phase one, section one of the subdivision located at 2070 Boomsborough Road, consisting of 19 single family lots.

Turn over off the staff report.

Yeah.

Take the mic.

So the applicant for 270 Boonsboro Road submitted the final subdivision for phase one, section one, unit one, with a subdivision known as Boone Crossing.

This phase consists of 19 single family parcels.

And the applicant, as stated earlier, would like to amend the previous approved setback for the parcel front thing along Boomsboro Road from 75 feet to 25 feet.

Also in the staff report are your landscaping requirements.

And so we just want to make sure that that the landscape requirement was notated on the final plat.

And that is that the standard is for one tree for 45 feet of street frontage for large trees, 35 feet for meaning trees, and 25 feet for small trees.

And so that's that's found in the Bendix out of the zoning, or sorry, of the submission regulations.

If it is approved tonight, um Kerris chapter 100.275, and that's going over the requirements for subdivision lines and development plans.

And you're also finding a motion in your staff report, two motions once it approved, one to the nine.

Um so depending on what direction the planning commission would like to go in some sample language.

Um then I will pull out the is the basis of this request a variant.

Correct.

Uh well it's it's final plant approval and and a variance.

Um so um because when it when it was originally not have to go to the board of the gut.

No, the the planning commission has the you know if it if it's associated with the subvision plan or plat or development plan, then it can come before the planning commission.

So any questions or comments for staff I'd like to know why the change, so do you want me to ask the developer when they come out?

Yeah, I think the developer can explain why.

I am I want to have the engineer come up here.

This is a little bit different, um, and I'm gonna go ahead and let him explain why specifically we're asking for this 25-foot setback instead of 75 viewers location.

My name's Tom Hatfield, I'm with EA partners of civil engineering firm in Lexington.

Uh originally this property had a 75-foot building line uh from a former plat, it was used as agricultural, and uh now that it's a planned development, uh all of the rest of the building lines within the subunit would be 25, and we're requesting to reduce the the building line on Boonsboro Road, or I'm sorry, uh Boomsborough Road down to 25 as well.

The actual right-of-way of this would be 25 feet from the existing right-of-way.

That right-of-way is approximately a hundred feet from the uh edge of pavement of Boonsboro Road.

So you're not gonna have property sitting right on top of Boonesboro Road, it only affects two lots, uh, but you're really gonna be setting back 125.

So it it only affects these two lots.

Everything else inside the subdivision already has a 25-foot building line.

So we're talking about the building line along the front edge of Boonesboro Road, and you can see that this is the edge of pavement of Boonsboro Road, and that's approximately 100 feet from the edge of pavement to the right-of-way.

And so what we're asking for is to reduce this to 25 feet, which is still gonna have a house or a structure, it's still gonna be 125 feet off the edge of pavement of Boonsboro.

Did that answer your question, Ms.

So it's not we're not we're not piling it close to Boonsboro Road?

There's gonna be a hundred feet.

So if you're driving down the road, instead of it being 175 feet, it'll be 125 feet, but it will set itself up so that it'll be in conformity with everything else that's around the development set, right?

And we've looked just real quick at the uh uh the the lots next door on the golf course, and they are also sitting back about 25 feet off of the right-of-way, but they appear to be well off the road, which they are, they're still 125 feet off.

This is very consistent with the the property next door.

Is there any questions for the applicant?

No, is there anyone here that would like to speak either for or against this proposal?

Anybody here want to speak for or against C none and we'll close giving it to the public and open it up to the commission.

For comment.

So an additional um also you'll find in your staff report the uh kind of breakdown for the uh cost of the development.

So this is for the bonding requirement that's in our in our subvision regs, and um, so I just want to make sure you know the first motion we need to entertain is for the final plat.

Uh and the second motion would be for to accept this this uh dollar amount to be bonded or for a letter of credit.

And uh so we we've we've approved either either letter credit or bond.

Um there is there's one thing I wanted to discuss with the applicant, our our engineer, our binding commission engineer.

Um I said there wasn't any breakdown of cost for the um sewer for for for W.

I want to make sure is that going all be installed at the time?

Is it already installed now or is it near completion?

Um we just want to make sure because that should be included in this as well.

This project started back in September, and we had hoped to have the sanitary sewers installed by uh by this meet.

Uh unfortunately the the weather has hit and stopped them, and so the sanitary sewers are not installed at this point, but I think James is saying that he would he wants to have those sanitary sewers installed before we go to record.

So that's why we originally we had we'd sent you a bond that had the sanitary sewers in it, and since you were revised one that they removed it, right?

And that was the reason, but the the weather stopped construction, so uh distributed to finishing the sanitary before it goes away.

So as long as the sanitary sewer is installed before it's put to record.

Installed, inspected, and accepted before the plants put to record, and before we accept it all right.

You good with that?

Any other questions or concerns or possible motion?

Rob, can you verify that south wind subdivision is the 25?

Yeah, I can pull it up right now.

I think I can pull it right now.

Oh I'm working on this.

We can take any other comments from staff or from community.

Commissioners need more discussion or questions.

I'm not sure why it's not working.

Can you look at it on the front?

Well, the south wind we've got such an elevation.

Um the elevation.

I just want to be consistent.

Right.

I mean, it's an elevation probably makes it work more so that we've got that set up.

I think I'm gonna try the mobile version just because it's on his Wi-Fi, and that would work better.

No, I'll put it.

So this is 627 right here.

And you see the right-of-way line is right here.

And then you can barely see it, but that's a 20-foot utility easement along along Bloomsboro.

So that that 20-foot utility and it's a utility and setback easement.

And that's so you have a 25-foot along the rear of these properties.

Oh, here, hold on.

There is a 25-foot building line right here.

Yeah.

So yeah.

So the 25-foot building line comes from the that line here, which would match with the as it shows here, 6275 right of way.

So the south point had 45 or is it 25?

It says 25.

I'll zoom in.

No, I'll I'll trust you.

Okay.

Yeah.

So 25 building line from this line here, which is identified as a right-of-way for 627.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Possible motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the final subdivision clap with phase one, section one unit one of the proposed subdivision located at 27 degrees for a road.

Contingent on landscape being noted on the flat referencing to the adherence with appendix F of the Winchester Clark County subdivision of development regulations based on the fact that the flat appears to the subdivision development regulations.

What is being shown is what was approved during the preliminary proposed subdivision.

Motion is there any seconds.

Mr.

Bellet, that we need to add the installed inspecting and accepted any part in what the gentleman just read.

I think we can entertain a second motion for the right of on the all second.

We've got a motion, a second as any other discussion on this motion.

See no discussion, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed no motion passes.

We'll get into our second.

And so our subdivision development regulation requires a 10% contingency.

So the 690,900, sorry, 690,993.

I couldn't say that better.

But that's the total number.

The 10% contingency is 69,000.

And so the total will be 760092 would be the total amount that we need to entertain for a motion.

And like Mr.

Golden said, we want to make sure that the sanitary sewer has been installed, inspected, and approved by WMU before the plat is put to record and before the bond is accepted.

Does it no?

Alright.

Okay, commissioners.

That level up.

That's right.

You can say better tonight.

This is my Ohio State Education.

Any questions from the commissioners or any possible motion?

Make a motion to approve.

Commissioner Bush.

Well asked it is installed, inspected and approved.

Yeah.

The motion included installed it.

Installed, inspected, and approved.

You get it, can't we?

So I have a motion and second.

Is there any other discussion?

Seeing no discussion, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed nay.

Motion passes.

This time I'll turn microphone back over to Chinese.

Next we'll move into public hearing.

C reviewing a zone map amendment proposing to rezone 2.699 acres of the property located at 4690 Benzboro Road from agriculture to highway business B3 for the use of a retail sales establishment.

All right.

The property is currently used for agricultural purposes.

The attached subdivision flat describes the 2.699 acres, and it's proposed to be subdivided from the parent track if the rezoning is approved.

The development is also attached showing the proposed building location, parking, and landscaping.

The property is shown on the future land use map as being anticipated for agriculture.

The property adjoins the property joining this property is identified for commercial use.

And we have an image of that.

And so I can try to zoom in a little bit.

I've got better drawers for Clark.

All right.

So this road right here is Flanagan Station Road.

This in the red follows that parcel line, the partial lines along Flanagan Station.

And as best as I can tell, the property is this large green property here that adjoins the property that has been identified for commercial use.

And so in the staff report, you'll find the land use designation of commercial in the description.

And then you also find 100.243, which we've already discussed a little bit tonight, and that's fine.

It's necessary for granting.

Actually, I apologize.

100.243 is for variances because something that is also being requested alongside the zone map amendment is a development plan and they're varying for the parking requirement.

But we won't get into we can go ahead and we can get in that here in a minute.

I just wanted to finish the thought about rezoning.

So what I want what I meant to put was 100.213, which is also found in your staff report.

And those are findings necessary for proposed map amendments and already kind of went over that today.

And so before any map amendment is granted, the planning commission or legislative body or fiscal court is fine that the map amendment is in agreement with the adoptive comprehensive plan, or in absence of such finding that one or more of the following apply.

And such findings shall be recorded in the minutes and records of the planning commission or the legislative body or fiscal court.

And so those findings, one would be that the existing zoning classification gives the property is inappropriate, and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate, and that there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area involved, which were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plan, and which have substantially altered the basic character of such area.

If for the night map amendment, in the staff report, you'll see Article 6.1, which uh goes into detail of what is what is permitted in an ag zoning district, and then you'll find article uh 6.13, which goes into detail as what is approved or permitted in a highway business district, and that's the B3 district that is being requested for tonight.

Um I stated a little earlier in the development plan for a parking requirement uh we are asking for varies, and so for a retail space, we we we require one parking space for each 100 square feet for the first 2500 square feet of floor area, then we require 100, we require one space for each one 25 square feet for each 2500 square feet, and then we require 150, one for 150 square feet for each 2500 square feet.

So, in a nutshell, um what is being required, and also this property um would be a low volume retail, so that's 50% less of what is required for your your like say big box retail stores and um you can see the the cap the calculations I said the applicant is requesting for a parking space variance allowing for a total of 20 spaces, 11 below the requirement for for low volume retail, and that's when I kind of broke down how much would be required based on the requirement based on the regulations.

Um so what they're asking for is 11 below the requirement.

I know I said a lot if there's any questions or comments for staff.

We did we do that on the US 60.

We did.

We did something similar for US 60 for the Dollar General.

What is that kind of like to come up?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

John Rom here on behalf of both the applicant and the owner of the property.

Um I would submit to you, and I've got for you for your consideration.

Um proposed findings in fact that you can kind of follow along with as we go through tonight.

But I would submit to you that actually this proposal is in agreement with the compensation plan.

Um as Mr.

Jeffries pointed out, I think most people are fairly familiar with this location.

But if Mr.

Jeffers, if you'll kind of move forward a slide, we're talking about uh the area basically very close to the intersection of Flanagan Station Road and 627 or Bruinsboro Road.

Um the property highlighted here is a portion of a farm.

And Mr.

Jeffers, if you'll kind of go to the next slide, you can see the adjacent properties.

What we're talking about, the rezoning is not the entire track, but we're talking about the small portion here at the front.

This property, this commission, over the course, I think of the last five years has rezoned this on two separate occasions to B3 zoning.

It's the Benton RV and boat stores.

This property has been utilized as a mechanic shop for a long time.

This property, as a child, I remember that that was where Beach Market kind of had their nursery store, their garden store.

I think then it became the golf store, golf garden sales, retail sales center, and then later on it became Al's Garden.

Across the street, my recollection as a child, this is where Laymore Paving was located.

There's now an electrician who has this shop there.

JK's is here, and then Mary Beth Hendrix still owns this piece of property, which has been the Mercantile store, it's been Beach Green, but it's been used for commercial uses.

This entire area, this area up here, this area here, and all of this area here are in the comprehensive plan for commercial use.

This piece of property is part of the same farm.

The same owners own the farm.

This road basically is the dividing line in the comp plan future land use maps.

But this whole area has been identified for commercial use.

It's been identified for B3 zoning.

That is the reason the applicant has selected B3 zoning, is actually to be in conformity with everything that's around it.

The use the applicant intends to utilize for this property is actually permissible in B1, much less dense zoning is allowed in B1 zoning.

But to be consistent with what has been done before, they've selected to be B3 and to be kind of uniform with what is also already in the area.

This applicant is the same person or the same development firm that was responsible for the development on Lexington Road, the Skyview.

They're also the same developer who was responsible for the development of the Dollar General that's located on Vetrixville War.

Those those two locations, they both did both of those.

And I think in conjunction with staff, that's the other reason the zoning was selected to kind of be uniform was what was there.

But I would submit to you that the actual proposed use is something that is allowed in much lesser zoned district.

What do you build there?

What are they building?

A dollar general.

This shows you the current zoning in the area.

So that light blue is all already zone B3.

And I would remind you that this commission, I was here for both the meetings where this portion of this property, which is not on the main thoroughfare, was rezoned to B3 within the last six or seven years.

I think one of them probably was before COVID and one of them was after, is my recollection.

But again, all of this property is identified in the comp plan for commercial use.

And then it would appear that the map hasn't been updated where the RV boat storage has expanded.

That's also been that's also, and it's not shown on any of our publicly available maps, but it is that has been rezoned.

If you don't mind going forward with the Jeffers, this surrounding area that I'm just kind of summarizing what I just said.

This is an area that my entire time on this planet has been used for commercial uses.

The commercial zoning of this predates our zoning ordinance.

It was used for commercial uses prior to us even having a zoning ordinance in Clark County, and if that has been continuous the entire time I have been alive.

It is a small portion that fronts on 627.

It is not the entirety of that parcel, it is just the part that fronts.

That is important because our comprehensive plan talks about what you should consider when you are thinking about allowing rural commercial development.

And one of the factors is being located near a major roadway.

And that makes common sense to locate commercial uses on good roads where you have adequate access to utilities and adequate access to transportation facilities.

That is one of the things that you're supposed to be considering.

And this is less than a thousand feet from that intersection.

Um, it is again adjoining property that has already been zoned B3, uh, and it is something that uh there's been much more intensive uses than a Dollar General store in that area for over 30 years.

Um the next slide I think is very important.

This is language verbatim from your comprehensive plan.

And it talks about five things, five factors that you should consider when you're thinking about places to locate rural commercial land.

Should it serve the local residential community?

I know there's people behind me that have are not happy about the idea of the Dollar General, they wouldn't care where it was located, but they're certainly not happy about it here.

But the whole business model of Dollar Generals is to locate these types of facilities in more rural areas, central to where there's residential housing.

That's the whole purpose of them is to serve that local community.

You hear a lot about concerns about, I mean, I just was at a meeting two months ago where all we heard about was how we don't want traffic on the bypass.

Well, the whole purpose of stores like this is to serve local communities without them having to travel to the commercial hub.

That's what their whole business model is to serve the people of the residential areas around there.

If you recall the zoning map, there is R1A zoning, you know, across Bruinsboro Road on Old Rills Road.

There are neighborhoods back there.

Most of this agricultural land has been subtubed divided into lots that are residential housing.

The second criteria is it needs to be located on at least a minor collector road.

Well, this beats that by a lot.

It's it's located on a major thoroughfare.

It's a state highway with extremely limited access.

There needs to be adequate utilities.

This will be on septic for sewer.

There's water and electric available.

The application was presented to the Tep and Review Committee.

The recommendations and the requests of the utility companies were taken into consideration on the plan that's before you tonight.

Should not conflict with adjacent land uses.

Again, I think you need to look at both at what the comp plan maps show you as this area being designated for commercial use, and also some things that will allow, I think, some protections for some of the people who have concerns about this being located nearly.

One of the first things I'd submit to you is this is going to be on the major roadway.

The plan does comply with the lighting ordinances, the buffering ordinances.

And it was an intentional thing here to come with a variance request, so actually to make the footprint of this smaller.

The more parking that's going to be required, the more land that is required to accommodate that parking.

So part of the idea of having less parking is you're actually taking up less of the land and you're taking up less space generally.

This property also is uniquely situated because of where it sits.

There are significant elevation changes in the area.

So if you're traveling out of town, if you can picture this property, I don't want to say it sits in a hole, but it sits at the bottom of a hillside.

And you know, you you the view shed is uh impacted by that.

You know, you won't be able to see this from some of the surrounding properties because of where it's located.

Um, that's just talking about the view shed.

And the final part of it is that the design should complement surrounding developments, and some of that was tech you know, taken into consideration that the parking variants have less parking to allow less concerns about traffic, less concerns about usage.

Uh, the engineer is here today.

Um, there is included in that presentation, we can skip forward some of the calculations about usage.

Um, and I I would say to you that the intended uses of retail centers like this actually have much less usage than our ordinance would require.

I will also tell you that as a person who regularly attends a technical review committee, one of the things we hear is we actually want less parking in commercial developments because all it does is take away green space.

And you see people shaking their head.

That's some of the feedback we're given is that our ordinance actually requires more parking.

And I think some of you are, you know, in your life experience would recognize that when you drive by Walmart or some of our larger shopping centers, you know, the parking is never fully utilized, that we have excess our parking requirements actually create excess hardscaping.

So this was an attempt by the developer to take that into consideration given the location, given what they're able to see.

You know, you did the exact same thing on the variance for the Lexington Road location.

I think this is actually slightly less than that, even I regularly drive by that store, and that parking lot is never like overflowing with usage.

Um, I'd submit to you that they they were very intentional about taking into consideration some of that.

Uh, in meeting with fire and EMS, they're going to locate a fire hydrant in this area.

Um, we'll improve safety for that purposes.

And then, like I said, they've met with the utility companies and the utility companies have approved servicing this location and and asked for the requisite.

Rob, if you don't mind going forward.

Um consider a number of things in considering a variance, and uh, like I said, one of them is uh talking about public safety.

Um I'd submit to you there's a traffic, there's a letter from the engineer talking about uh usage, and I would submit to you that that is sufficient evidence that it's not going to be uh hazard or nuisance to have less parking.

That's what they're asked talking about, is whether or not less parking would cause that hazard or the nuisance or create something that would adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.

So I would submit to you you have an engineer's letter before you tonight documenting that the use of the anticipated usage of the highest volume would actually only require 17.1 or two parking spaces, and they've submitted to be on the safe side of plenty of 20 parking spaces.

And again, um, you know, their intent with the variance is actually to have more in line with the character of the general vicinity versus having excess parking that they're not, they don't anticipate needing to be utilized.

So I would submit to you for all of these reasons.

I think your comprehensive plan does actually provide significant basis for uh commercial development in this area, uh primarily to match what is happening in this area for 30 years, and also the comprehensive plan committee's foresight to know that it is likely to continue to happen, and that is why they've identified this area, uh, even properties that are not zoned commercially.

You know, the comprehensive plan has identified this area for future growth.

Um I would ask to reserve some time in rebuttal, and I'm happy to answer any questions in the give uh the engineer for band engineering engineering to see if you have any specific questions for him as well.

Have you already had conversations with the state about the entrance and all that?

I have, and chair, if I share this.

This the first thing is the parking thing that I was talking about.

I apologize I should have shared that when I was talking about it.

Um the second though is just the email exchange today.

You know, the state is very back up.

Um part of the intentionality behind this design is to utilize an existing entrance, and that is one of the requirements.

Uh, my understanding of 627 from basically from the county line all the way into town is a very restricted access.

So one of the things they're gonna be required to do is use the existing farm access that is there.

Um you'll notice in the email the state talks about the need to expand that entrance uh to provide uh you know appropriate safety measures, guardrails, things of that nature, but uh there is not approval of it.

Um, but there is also a subdivision plant that has been prepared, and there's a notation on that plat.

I think the applicant's happy to make it part of you know a restriction here today that the entrance has to be approved by the state before the zoning can take effect.

That's gonna be a requirement for that anyway.

Uh so they're not gonna have an issue with that at all.

But that's that's fresh off the press.

That happened, you know, they got that response today, and the state's just backlogging, but they don't anticipate any issues, sight lines, etc.

based on the existing if as long as they use that existing entrance, which is what the plan shows.

Is this landlocked property behind it?

If you're only using the front, there's an act, there's an access road that'll service the rest of the farm.

And if there if this is approved, there's an agreement between the parties for a joint access.

The access easement is shown on the on the plan.

Correct.

For number, correct.

And again, this property adjoins the properties that are already commercially utilized.

Any other questions for the applicant from the commission?

Thank you.

This time we'll open the floor to public comment for anyone that'd like to speak for or against this.

Please come up and state your name and address for the record, please.

Okay.

Yeah, my name is Kelvin Fortwood, and we own the property right beside area.

So this is what my our view looks like right now.

My wife and I bought this property 30 years ago and built our house.

My neighbor, the same, and we went on top of the hill.

So would anybody would any of y'all in here would y'all trade this view?

Would you trade that view for the back of the dollar store parking lot at the back of the dollar store?

I'm having easier question once.

Sir, you know, so they're gonna be you're gonna be put putting a dollar store there, and like you got five-acre tracks.

You got uh like 29 homes with five-acre tracks.

So, like a dollar store put there, it's not needed.

There's nobody out there that probably even shops in the dollar store.

There's a dollar store that's three miles down the road in town.

You got four miles to Walmart, four miles at Kroger, you're getting the Publix, you got an Aldi's, and there's and not only that, the dollar store right there uh on Boone Avenue's got a sign on the door now says they'll deliver.

So there's no need for that dollar store in that area.

There's there's nobody that lives in that area that have has ever said, Man, I wish we had a dollar store.

So it's not needed, it's not wanted, and it's not gonna be, you're gonna have people driving down 55 mile an air road, going 65, stopping to turn in, and people pulling out of the dollar store there, right beside our driveways where my daughter pulled out and almost got killed for so it's gonna be a safety issue, it's gonna be uh an eye sore type issue.

It's not needed and it isn't wanted.

So I don't know uh you know what the justification would be how you would justify doing it.

So that's basically it.

That's my view I got right now.

Sky land, and I'm gonna trade that, or they want to trade that for the back of the dollar store and the dumpster, but with a small parking lot though, you know, because you know why?

Because ain't gonna be nobody going to the damn thing.

Who's gonna go to them?

You're gonna go to Kroger's and get your groceries, Walmart, who's gonna go to the dollar store and get your groceries.

So we don't want it, we don't need it, and I don't know how y'all can justify it.

You got a new development already.

You put the high school out there, that's fine, that's progress.

That's good.

A lot of traffic.

You put the new little hamburg there, that's three or four hundred houses.

People that can't, they're not gonna be working in Winchester.

They're gonna get on the internet, they're gonna get on that road, come right down by my house and get on 75 and go to work, and they're gonna do the opposite.

And then all the traffic tractor trailers that come down 75 and need to go 64 east, they all go down that way too.

So all you're gonna hear is like traffic up and down.

And it's it's gonna be a safety issue.

So has there been like a traffic uh impact study done on the traffic impact study?

I'll adjust it.

Because we want to know, you know, like what's what's the justification of it?

So he's only gonna have 11 spots, so you're gonna have like maybe 15 customers a day.

Like that doesn't justify, and the 15 customers, it's probably not even gonna be any of the people that live there.

Uh JK's a nice place, uh, beach springs, all that.

There's nothing out there that screams we need a dollar store.

So that's about all I got to say about it.

I don't want it, don't need it.

I don't think y'all can justify that.

My name is Krista Portwood.

That's my husband.

We're gonna be the neighbors to the Dollar General.

Dollar General historically builds places that are in rural areas, and they build places where people don't have access to cars.

A lot of the places that we have make sense.

It makes sense when you're coming in from Lexington, all those people that have a Dollar General don't have to come all the way into town.

Or if you're out on the what's the new bypass, that's a long way out.

That's a long way to town.

That Dollar General is gonna be 3.1 miles from the one we already have.

4.1 miles from Walmart.

It's not rural, it's not an inconvenience to drive an extra three miles.

They're gonna put in a fire hydrant.

We have a fire hydrant.

When they move the water meter from that area from the Honikers property across 627 in front of the three um houses that are there, we they put fire hydrant.

We have one, it's not going to add safety because we already have one right there where the houses are.

Um I'm sure I probably had other things that I want to say, I wanted to say, but I really thought it was a joke when my husband said they're gonna put a dollar general there, and I was like, we it's so close.

How many would we get how many are we gonna have?

I guess that's why I'm asking.

If you talk to people about what does Winchester not need, another Dollar General is gonna be right up there because and especially this one.

I don't understand the justification.

I'm not I'm I'm for progress, but one three miles from another one.

It doesn't make sense, it's not rural in the way that you're saying.

Nobody that lives out there thinks that they're in a rural area because we're so close, and I do believe that you said 627 isn't a major rate.

I'll always thought the commission, but I didn't say that.

Okay, well, I'm just clarifying because that's what I heard.

It might not have been what he said, but I'm like, 627 for our Clark County is definitely a major thoroughfare from people going from the one interstate crossing over and going to the other, and your list of what they tried to look for in my understanding was that they tried to pick places that weren't as busy like some of these other places we're talking about US 60 going to Lexington, isn't gonna hold the traffic that that 627 does, or out where the new bypasses.

Is it gonna hold the traffic that that 627 does?

Or out where the new bypasses.

So I anyway, that's what I think.

I just think I thought it was a joke.

It didn't make any sense to me why we're gonna use this land to put something there that we're we're already serviced.

We don't need it.

There isn't, as my husband said, anybody he was saying, oh gosh, I wish I could save that four miles and just go here.

It four miles is not an inconvenience for anybody.

Thank you for listening back and service.

Anyone else?

I'll go.

Hello everybody.

Um, my name is Diana Kirk, and I live on Old Boonsboro Road, which is directly behind New Dronesburg or rubber in front of, if you want to call it either way, but um this proposed um property um to us when I read it, I also thought it was a joke.

Um, because we have six, I think already, and not counting the dollar trees and not counting the family dollars and all these dollar stores, but um I just wanted to tell you guys that I recall at Christmas um at the at the dollar store down um up by the the the old well right by here, you know, just right down here.

There was a sign up on the on the door there, and I was going through there.

I think I'd gotten gas, and I just went up there and I saw this sign on the door, and it said, unfortunately, we can't open today because no one wants to show up for work.

That's what it said, and that is not uncommon for our dollar store here in Winchester.

People, you know, if they do have somebody working there, it's substandard.

They, you know, it you hardly get help.

I have gone in there, I have frequented there before.

Um, and it's junky.

I mean, so I'm looking out my you know, drive.

There'll be tons of semis coming through there, and you'll hear the jake brakes going and it's now just because of the high school and you know, all the new um residential areas gonna come in, it's gonna get worse, and we're okay with that because, like, you know, um like like was said a while ago, it is progress, and we appreciate that.

However, we don't want progress to be mistaken as junking up our beautiful lands around us, and he and you know, Mr.

I know you were talking about you know, all those other areas of businesses around, you know, have been zoned for that type of thing, but they're they're farming business.

I mean, you know, they're like small, you know, community businesses, it's not like a dollar general that will junk up our beautiful areas.

To me, it's just a no-brainer, it's idiotic if you ask me.

I think it's all about you know, trying to get money, and I get it, I get it, but I think it's a wrong place, period for for our community, you know, for for our side of town, I think it's wrong, and I really hope that you all think so as well.

That's all I got in the back.

My name's Ron Allen.

I'm uh one of the neighbors that uh this is going to affect um counselor made the uh point that all the commercial things around there, all those commercial things around us, and that's a true statement.

But all those commercial things around us, none of them are corporately owned.

None of them have massive dollar general store signs.

They have very small community, they're very community-minded businesses.

The beach springs, everything he named, the old uh the old tax shop, it fit within the category of what we would think would be around us, so we didn't think anything of it.

But when we heard something corporate's coming in with the big flashy sign out front, and creating, you know, the it will create people fly on that road, and this will just be one more one more inlet for that.

So I I just I would take very cautiously what he was saying about all these businesses surrounding us when in fact all these businesses are mom and pop businesses.

Exactly, exactly.

And those mom and pop businesses were there before Ron and I bought our property 30 years ago.

And to his point, they were there before we ever bought our homes there.

They they've been there for a long time.

And I hope they're there for a long time to come.

But they don't come with traffic issues.

They don't come with those kinds of things.

They're off the highway.

So that's all I have to say.

Anyone else like to speak?

Okay.

We'll close the floor for public comment, allow the applicant to provide his rebuttal statements.

I'd like to just introduce the engineer real quickly.

He's gonna address a couple of those issues, the traffic being one and the view set being the other.

And then I'll I'll answer the other questions that were raised.

I'm Will Stevens with Danage Engineering in Harrisburg, and I represent the applicant as an engineer.

Just to speak to the traffic concerns and just to be more specific in the email thread that was provided today.

We reached out to KYTC probably upward four or five months ago.

And one of the first things we discussed was that 6.7 is heavily restricted in terms of access.

They will not allow new commercial entrances.

You have to use an existing point of entry expand upon that.

And so that was part of the reason why this site was selected, was that it had a suitable existing point of entry in discussion with KYPC.

And then you know, we've since submitted full set of construction plans.

They haven't had time for fully review, but I did reach out again today just to reconfirm that KYTC still does agree with us that this is an appropriate location for an entrance.

As far as traffic concerns, um the most recent one here in your community was on Lexington Road.

Um that has a traffic count of about 8,000 cars per day.

Uh this location is about 9100 cars per day.

Uh in terms of from an engineering standpoint, a similar classification of road.

Um there were no turn lanes on the highway required.

Um we have never been required on major highways to have turn lanes, and that's simply because the Dollar General is not a high-intensity form of retail use.

Um it's it's a it's a convenience that's used throughout the day, but there aren't peak periods like a Walmart where you have rush hour at 5 p.m.

and you have cars stacked up on the highway.

They just don't meet that uh level of need.

So we don't intend to have any additional turn lanes, and I'm confident that they will not be required by the highway department.

Um as far as the view shed, it's hard unless you're out there to see it, but I'll try to describe as best I can behind our building to the southeast, so heading towards the county line, there's a large hill.

Um the building itself will sit, uh the finished floor of the building, so the bottom of the building where you walk in, sits about 20 feet below the top of the hill adjacent to it behind it.

That hill will help screen the building from the adjacent homes that are to the southeast of the school.

Um that was what he was alluding to with the view sheds that uh we're not as exposed as you might expect uh to the near uh nearest homes on the highway because of the terrain.

Um and we that was intentional in how we laid the site out is to try to use the train to our advantage to help screen.

Cause it's deny support that that's about all I've got.

He summarized parking well.

Um the packet that you have is is based on something that's an industry standard as far as using uh calculation to use the parking uh in addition to that, Dollar General uh themselves reduced their requirement for this type of store from 30 spaces to 20 in the past year, and that's based on their own internal data.

Um, and like you say, you you don't want to have unused paved space that's uh that degrades the environment that just creates more intensity than you need in terms of the building.

Thank you.

Just to address in the comments, and then I would answer questions that you have.

When you're considering zoning, you've got some things that you're supposed to look at, and what you're supposed to look at is that comprehensive plan.

And for our purposes, this is a rural commercial development.

That's what it is within our comp plan, that's what it is within the regulations that you're supposed to consider.

And I would submit to you that those factors that you're supposed to consider are met by this by this.

I would also submit to you that you are not in a position where you, you know, I can understand the neighbor may feel one way about a corporate entity versus a mom and pop, but as a planning commission, you cannot legally discriminate against the end user and what their brand is.

Um we have a zoning ordinance, and what is before you is not about a dollar general.

It is about the type of zoning that this property is going to have.

And I would submit to you, as recognized by some of the comments, this area has had significant commercial use since before anyone moved out there.

My father did the rezoning of the five-acre tracks that sit on Boozboro Road.

All of those came into existence after all that commercial use was out there.

It was much more intensive commercial use.

Your job as a commission, as you know, is to evaluate the zoning request.

In terms of being transparent, yeah, we're going to tell you what the end user is and what the type of use is, but we're not required to do that.

You're asked to look at what the end user's use is going to be and make a determination about whether or not this zoning is appropriate within the guardrails that you've been given by your community in the comprehensive plan.

And those are the if you look at the comprehensive plan, it's repeated on page 80 and 82, the same exact things, and it says exactly what you're supposed to look at.

And I would submit to you that all of those are that.

I would ask for you to grant tonight the request of the zone map amendment.

I would also ask you to grant the variance because I think those two things go hand in hand with one another.

And I would ask that if you're willing to do that, then we consider a motion that incorporates the binding and facts that I submitted to you.

I'm happy to answer any other questions that you may have at the rise.

I'll sit down and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

At this time, we'll close the floor and open back to the commission for discussion and motion.

Mr.

Gallett, for legality purposes, does it match every comprehensive plan zoning ordinance?

As is all zoned amendment applications or FR.

I agree with Mr.

Roth that the question about exactly what type of business or how you're going to be run is generally not relevant.

The issue is have one of the three bases or a zone map amendment to map.

And ARF 100 223 in your pamphlet denied budget that requires one of three things.

And that is a major change of the social economic measure, a physical nature in the area, not a comprehensive plan, and that is probably because there haven't been any since our recently adopted comprehensive plan was approved.

The other is the inappropriate appropriate as to the current zone has not been our findings that have been tendered specifically saying that in accordance with KRF 100.213, the zoning classification contained in the map amendment request is an agreement with the Clark County windship for comprehensive point of as far, and then he said for eight uh different uh paragraph we set for his argument of why this is an agreement with a comprehensive plan.

Obviously, uh as outlined by Rob earlier, uh, this property is on the future land use map of future agriculture, uh which is not in compliance with this zone request.

I can't tell you ultimately not my decision if you're all decision whether uh the presentation you heard is in compliance with the cop plan or not.

We'll say in fairness that the uh while I don't take issue with the goals and objectives that are referred to in Mr.

Roth's proposed finding goals and objectives are such a uh well they're just written in a fashion that could be perfectly uh you could justify to some extent just about anything you want it to with one goal or another.

Um that does not mean that they're not important, and that does not mean that comply with them cannot sustain the zone map permit.

Uh but the ultimate decision is Euro does uh the argument that has been made by the applicant uh outweigh the back thing, Rob am I correct?

It's on the usual land use map agricultural.

Yeah, so if you look behind me on the on the um overhead, you'll see the this is a screenshot of the future land use map for the rural future land use areas, which is where this is located, and you can see and again for the most part we try to go along the the property boundary line.

And so if I were and I I I can I can pull up the the GIS map to for clarification if needed, but this line here is just going along that current property boundary line, and uh and so it appears by this map that the adjoining property has been identified for commercial development, but this property has been identified green for agriculture.

Um so like you said, the goals and objectives are good to review and to understand, and maybe that could have a justification in this rezoning, but we have to you know study both goals and objectives as well as the future land use map.

Mr.

Chair, if I may just quickly for the record, the property that's outlined in red that Mr.

Jeffries is referring to is part of the same farm that this property comes out of.

It is the front portion in this farm is the use of it is split by the future land use map.

Part of it is shown commercial development, part of it's not.

I would also submit to you that the rezoned property that was done on Flanagan Station Road previously to B3 from agricultural was not identified any differently than this property is identified.

I would also submit to you, you've heard from your legal counsel.

There's very specific state law in Kentucky that the future land use maps are not binding.

They can't be your only justification for changing it or not changing it.

You need to rely on the entire comprehensive plan as your guide for making a decision regarding a zone map and just move to the GIS map.

Um this is the the property boundary line that I was discussing, that's all on the wide line going line.

It would appear that from that solid wide line up to Flanagan Station that that area has been identified on future land use map as that's not so this line here up to Flanagan station identified in retro commercial.

Um appears to go along the same line as this property boundary.

I mean, it would appear the let me just double check, as Mr.

Rom says it is owned by the Spargos, so they're both owned by the same property, so it's essentially the same farm, but for whatever reason there's a property boundary separated.

So it's not in the complex use map.

It's not in the future land use map, but like we like Mr.

Rom and Mr.

Golett have stated it's you know we need to not just study the future land use map but also say the goals and objectives.

Um I would say that future land use map is a solid and very important tool when determining whether or not the the request is in line with the comprehensive plan, but because the comprehensive plan contains both land use map and goals and objectives we want to study both any more discussion from the commission.

I just want some clarification too.

So um the parcel that we're looking at, like if this is to be rezoned.

I guess sorry.

Get that box away.

Um it's just it's essentially this corner property, right?

So the dollar general property, if it were to be rezoned, would share a boundary line with the farm, not the residential properties.

And that that's what I'm trying to kind of get clear across.

A portion of the property is already shown for commercial use on the use map.

So it's this the prop the parcel that will be created, part of it is shown for commercial use.

I have part of it is not.

So that's what I'm trying to get across to you.

The map isn't binding in either way, but part of it is shown for commercial use, and it all all of it is on one farm that is part of it is shown for commercial.

So that proposed boundary line would be somewhere like where my cursor is, like in this area.

Correct, because it has to encompass the existing entrance.

Okay.

So I apologize.

So half of the things already commercial, technically.

I wouldn't say half of the portion, a portion of the property has been identified for commercial, and the other portion of the property is identified as agriculture.

I apologize for misleading.

It's okay.

I wasn't being clear.

Yeah.

Any other discussion?

Possible notes.

Any other discussion or possible those?

So additional questions quickly for counsel.

Um I can say I personally I was talking about that's uh what it's going to be used for, you can't you can't be discriminatory on that course, right?

But where private property other than you know in the land use map as agricultural, is there any other legal uh or precedent for not approving this?

Is that a single item?

Well obviously that that would not necessarily be the single item if you I'm sure the uh elements of the that you could argue you do not report it maybe other areas of the client, but um when uh this is what happened when group opposed but opposed without count.

Um they make the argument which may have all the merit in the world, but they're not directed toward uh the areas of the company really give the commission uh much of a foothold in making the recommendation to the map.

And to ask the applicants, what were the goals at as far as why does this fit in, just to clarify for you, why does this fit in with the goals of the comprehensive plan?

Well, one of the goals is to prefer to promote commercial development, and that's that's cited you know regularly by me.

I think it's on its face apparent that when you're talking about adding any commercial business, you're you're going to that goal.

But the main thing that I asked you to look at is there are criteria very specifically set forth for why we're areas where you should have rural commercial development.

And those are the five things that were on my slide, they're right before you.

Uh I think it's the very first finding of fact.

Those are the things in the comp plan that you're supposed to consider, and I would submit to you that all of those have been met.

And you know, rural commercial growth is always difficult because it's the area where we are bringing growth into an area where it doesn't exist.

You know, it wasn't argued, but it was put in your staff report about changes in the area, and you've heard denied you're going to have a huge residential community on 627 too.

You have a high school on 627.

This area has changed tremendously in the last 30 years, and it's going to continue to change.

This commission is all the time tasked with looking at areas for growth, and they're always going to be on your major thoroughfares.

That's just the reality of where commercial development's going to take place.

So if you're asking for the specifics, I would say it's page 80 and 82 of your comp plan, and then the goals are about economic economic growth.

And I've I've tried the best that I can to put in your findings in fact the areas that would support that.

I don't disagree with Mr.

Cullett.

You know, you hired a lawyer, Mr.

Thomas and I could argue either side of either any of these things.

That's what lawyers are paid to do, but that's why you have a document that tells you what you're supposed to consider.

And I'm not misrepresenting what it says.

I mean, I literally copied and pasted that quite a bit strict straight from the comp plan.

And that's what you're supposed to consider.

So looking at the existing zoning of the properties.

And again, I might be looking at this wrong, and please correct me.

Any lawyers in the room.

But the existing entrance is right here.

So it pretty much lines up with the boundary line.

And if if you look at the plan, the existed the entrance is not changing.

And so the portion of the property that is on the property that has been identified for on the future land use map for commercial development is just this small portion here.

That would be where the access road is current.

The rest of the property though, now the future land use map and the existing zoning maps are different.

Future land use says what we anticipate, existing zoning is what's there today.

So if we turn this on, basically what we would be rezoning, we'll have a little jog out here, and then a larger square here to be three.

This would be remain agriculture, and everything else around it would remain agriculture.

Is that correct for the most part?

Yeah.

Yeah, what if you don't know if there's only four one thing that I would add is this is one farm.

The Benton property is rezoned multiple times.

Comes out of this same exact farm.

Right.

This is the same.

I mean, yes, it's multiple legal parcels, but it is the same farm that you've already rezoned twice in the last six years.

That's in, you know, I don't know this, but my assumption is that that Benton thing looks pretty full to me now, and every time it's gotten full, they've come back to you and asked us rezone more land.

So I don't know if for a fact that's gonna happen, but I'm not gonna represent to you that there's not going to be a request to rezone the rest of this.

This is an area that is changing, and I would suggest it's probably that whole part that's designated for future growth is certainly going to be commercial property someday.

It's already designated that way, but it's again it's part of the same property, it's just a different parcel of the same farm.

Any more discussion?

To answer one of the questions that they had, there was a traffic study done because they had the numbers of 9100 versus I think it was 830 from 60 to 627.

Is that correct?

The numbers that I'm citing are from a uh traffic count performed by the Kentucky Park Highways.

We did not perform it, but it's publicly available named.

Wasn't performed specific to the Dollar Junior for the entire highway.

Thank you.

And very correct, there's not been a traffic study performed to, you know, there's not a traffic study isn't required by our regulations for a single use.

I know it was mentioned that in the sample motions or in the staff report it talked about um anticipating or or if anything would anticipate or not anticipated.

And and when in the sample motions, you'll find language about that.

It doesn't mean that you have to use that language, but uh in fact it's in both, you know, if you want to use it for a motion to approve or deny um that language is in both.

So whether you find that major change is taken in the area that wasn't anticipated in the comp plan, or where you do not find that major changes has taken place, you know.

So um when when writing the staff report um with the information presented to me, that's that's uh the way I felt I could go with with any sample motions knowing that the future land use map did identify as a portion of the property for commercial and not the entire portion.

Um if you were to this is just language, you might have I think if you find it and find one more appropriate than you're finding the existing number.

I guess for the community from open my thoughts, it's uh I personally think from this one as uh complex process for agricultural, and I feel like the goal of the plan was to take as much agriculture as I want as we get out of the city center.

Um this one that's outside for our current use.

I can't hear you.

I was trying to repeat what he said.

Oh this close just in case and I can address I think I could hear you, and I can address that.

I mean, the applicant is willing to be zoned B1 and be a buffer against what you're talking about, because that's you know, they only submitted the application away as it's done because of the fact that the surrounding uses were already zoned that way.

But from a planning perspective, if you want to send a message that we're trying to preserve, they're fine with B1.

They were just trying to be consistent and compatible with what's already there.

So you know, if you're talking about wanting to create a buffer, because this, you know, because of the ag land surrounding it, they're fine with that.

We were just trying to meet you know the objective would be consistent.

So you know the complaint calls for consistency, and that was the reason it was asked for V3 zoning.

So they're they're fine with B1.

Their use is like I said, that's uh it's a less intense use, and they're fine with that.

So if that's something the commission wants to consider, they're they're willing to amend their application to reflect that.

And Bobby, if that's the case, if if this commission would rather it be more like a buffer zone and go B1 route, I know it was advertised as B3, but knowing that you can get more uses, more dense uses in a B3 zone, would it be appropriate for them to entertain for a V1?

Well, the party at risk is the applicant uh and if they're willing to do it, and it is uh it is in effect the down zone.

A more restrictive zoning.

It's more interesting.

So to me, it's like if you ask for a 20 uh foot variant, uh, and the board gives you a 15-foot variant, you've advertised for greater.

So I think if the board wanting to make a recommendation to approve this as a V1 zone, that probably would be within your right.

And I just pulled up the zoning district overhead so you can see the uses that are permitted.

So the B1 is a neighborhood business district, the B through is a highway business district.

Um, and so these neighborhood business districts were created or identified as areas that you know permitted those uh different uh commercial uh uses that would be good for a neighborhood, you know, or acceptable for a more residential area uh in your highway business district is set, you know, you'll find on a more uh commercial corridor.

Um it doesn't it doesn't change the goals or objectives in the comp plan or doesn't change the future land use map in the comp plan, but you know if we were looked at it like a buffer zone, I could see where that that could be a case.

I don't know that right is like be a buffer between the residential or agriculture and the commercial.

I'm not saying I'm advocating for it, I'm just saying it could be it could be logical.

I you know I think we have to be very cognizant of the parent piece of land that originally has been bit by bit rezoned.

Uh and it we are at a unique situation because the current zoning for this piece of land and entirety is split.

Yes, it's a small amount, but it's still an amount, and and I think in the past six years we have created a precedent on this parent piece that on the periphery of how it's been done that we have said we've allowed it, and and and putting ourselves in a a position, and I think we know personally we go in there and we think about um what what the zoning is and who the end user is, but as people on this board, we are we wanted to take what our our charge is and to be consistent with what what our our zoning has has done without prejudice of uh of an end user of somebody's ability to do something that they've asked and put in sheet.

So I I I know that the most the more recent rezoning for the area has been the RV boat storage.

Um a big reason, big finding of fact that was given for that uh rezoning for both of those rezonings because they came before you twice with the future land use map identifying it for commercial development.

Um I'm really doing the commission, right?

I've only been a few months.

They looked at it as a commission.

What are our goals in this one?

Do we want to preserve the agricultural land?

Is that a set precedence that it is our goal from this point right to do that?

Or years ago at this point, five years ago to review that rezoned out to be three or do things.

So I think it's just as we go through the talk about this.

Do we want to say we feel like we should draw a hard line on agricultural land?

Or are we saying that at this point, you know, because I think it's just kind of a hinge point, how much do we want to develop these thoroughfares, these roadways, what do we want to have happen in Clark County?

I'm really kind of looking at it personally.

What is my goal in this situation?

I I feel like I'm inclined to try and maintain the bad land.

That's the way I feel, but I'm also in general very pro uh business and development a lot of things.

So that's why I'm waffling on this.

You know, that's why I want to hear some discussion.

I feel like as a commission, that is one of my priorities is to maintain some pretty ad land building rounds and the developed areas we want to develop based on the plan.

That's how I justify my thoughts at this point.

But if someone has a controversial thought, right?

So we have less than the possibility.

This is what we do.

I think we have to look at the parent track.

I mean the parent, the the parent track and and it is going from you've got this little piece that you know is commercial, and we're gonna go over and come out over here.

We're not gonna this piece that is so contiguous with it, we're not gonna come out over to the other side.

So I think that there is some um contiguous nature of this that I guess that is one of my concerns was it just cutting out little pieces of lands all over the place and so we're taking those balance.

So I think there's again we have the phase of go through two development that we really want to develop, but I basically want to see develop that so I start to feel like in this place that we're cut a slide we see a cut of system is the opposite of what I feel like the goals are.

But again, if we want to argue against it, I'd love to hear I'm really looking for I I'm open on this one, but I couldn't leave it in one direction.

So if someone has a good argument the opposite direction, I'd probably be a current commission.

I do believe that we have to follow the law, and sometimes the law is not always about saving land, I live in the country, but we also have to follow the law, not our gut on the case.

I I agree, I agree in fact.

That's why it's currently on plan as agriculture.

So that's why I kind of looked at is do we have the ability to do this, or should we not?

You know, I think that's that's why we have goals and objectives in the comprehensive plan to make it not so concrete.

Living and breathing, you can't um I don't think we can anticipate um a plan.

I think what wouldn't how how often do we redo it every six years, everyone we're required to adopt it every five, we can read the other.

We adopt it every five years and we can't in that moment of time that at that five-year mark, nothing is going to change until the next five-year mark.

Therefore, we have goals and objectives.

And and that, you know, it's just it's a living breathing document.

And and it it it is.

I mean, and you you know, just like council has said today, and I think anytime you engage with council, you you realize that council can can argue either way.

Right.

And so and and that's that's what probably a goal and objectives, because they could argue either way, of course.

That's been our discussion of goals, right?

So I thought that's okay.

I feel like I really want to finish it out.

Well I won't say that is there.

So Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make my motion.

Yes, sir.

I would like to make a motion to forward a recommendation to the government body to approve the zone map amendment to rezone the 2.699 acres located 469 Bloomsboro Road.

Okay.

We have a motion and second.

Is there any discussion?

Uh Kim, can we do a road call vote?

Uh yes.

Commissioner Nasbett?

Yeah.

Commissioner Sand.

Do I call you?

I don't really know, but yes.

Commissioner Factory, yes.

Commissioner?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion passes.

The only thing else we need to entertain motion for is the development plan.

And then the flat will be approved by staff.

And with the development plan, they ask for the areas for the parking lot.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, sir.

I make a motion to approve the development plan for the proposed read zoning of the property located 469 roads between parking variants and landing total 20 parking places, which is living under the requirement based on the projected total provided by the applicant.

In fact, the plan is improved technical review and meeting requirements and found within Winchester Clark County Development Subdivision regulations.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay.

This is the development plan.

Yeah.

Oh, good.

Did we do a vote, Kim?

Do I need to vote on this?

I don't know.

All those in favor of approving the development plan say aye.

Aye.

Oppose nay.

Motion passes.

Next we'll move into public hearing.

Reviewing a preliminary development plan proposing 198 single family lots for the 47.7 acre plan development zone property address at 2860 Lexington Road and located in the frontier one.

Mr.

Chairman?

Yes, sir.

Can we please get a five-minute recess?

Second.

All in favor?

I respect.

We'll come back at 8 15.

Go ahead and discuss it.

We'll just stop it.

I'd like to stay in the red.

I got a lot of bill.

We don't have any.

Oh yeah, I've got to do that.

Oh my God.

Alright, we'll call the meeting back to order.

Right.

Rob, do you want to go to the staff report for the public hearing?

Yes.

So the next item on the hearing tonight is for 2860 Lexington Road.

It's a total of 42.7 acres.

The applicant submitted a development plan application proposing to continue the single family development on the back 42.70 acres of the 347.

The development is shown connecting to Frontier Way and Gibson Way.

The property is shown on the future land use map as being anticipated for planned community neighborhood.

The property is already zoned plan development.

So this this year tonight is just for the development.

Also, I'll go ahead and put up the proposed development plan.

Any questions or comments for staff?

This is already in everything zone correctly and correct, yes.

So as the the last time we've we reviewed this was or this area was for when Ballholmes was proposing to develop um at the end of frontier there, um Strawberry and Gibson uh way.

And so uh now we have this new plan that I think that is either finished or I think there might be maybe there's already lots left to develop maybe two.

Um it's all done.

All right, and so this is the next phase of that development.

And the entrance is on 60.

So the entrance to this would be with the continue.

You can see um Gibson and Frontier.

So in the areas, if you wanted to point your little doohickey.

Oh, I love my booty.

So you can see Frontier there and at the bottom is that Gibson.

And they'll connect the end.

So unfortunately, Miss Bush, the we have a stubbed road right here, which leads toward Lexington Road.

Uh, but right now, as it relates to the current uh infrastructure, uh Frontier Way is the only entrance.

If this is just a continuation of the existing yeah, but we do have connectivity here because we also have Gibson down here leading up, so it does have some connectivity to get around.

But we do have it stuffed here, and then for future development, we have this road stubbed, and we've got Gibson Way continued to be stubbed.

Yeah, and so we have also a future.

So this was a this before I was thought of.

Well, I'm sure I was thought of, but I wasn't in Winchester yet.

Um so this this shows a stub out street that would hopefully one day connect to Colby.

And so we're looking at this area right in here, these correct.

Yes, no, no.

I think you're looking at your right, Ryan.

Oh, there I yeah.

So this is where the so the pond is here, and then we're looking in this development.

So Brian, go lay up to the pond.

The pond is here, but the preschool layout.

Preschool.

This big green pond is what we're talking about.

There you go.

So we're here.

It's okay.

That's what's not going to go to Colby and I mean.

Well, and and so I just wanted to talk about how it was definitely talked about how we wanted to make sure there is plenty of future development sites, you know, that maybe one day connect to Colby and hopefully connect to to Lexington.

And so that's that's why I wanted to bring it up.

Is you know, that's something definitely that we talked for a good long time in the technical review, and that's why they provided that future uh or the development plan that was approved years ago, showing that you are planning a stub out street to Colby on another phase of this development.

Um but on this phase of the development, we have a stubborn street leading to Lexington.

Right.

Hope that one day soon because that can really help not just with the proposed development, but the existing development desk and the traffic that we see.

Correct.

You don't have to stuff with I'm I don't I don't I mean this should be pretty cookie cutter.

I mean we've heard a lot about what what you have.

I mean, this shows the streets, it shows the lot size, it shows the setbacks.

Everything is on our utilities are already marked in there right, Mr.

Ward.

So plan.

Yeah, so I mean it's it's pretty cookie cutter, it shouldn't shouldn't have any uh issues if there are any questions.

Mr.

Ward can answer any technical question.

So any questions from the commission for the applicant.

Okay.

Hello, my name is uh Clip Edwards.

I'm a resident right now in uh Strawberry Lane.

Um I also work with the uh I think it's the largest uh employer in Winchester, uh Maximus on the end of the street there.

Um spoken with several residents as a member of the HOA there.

Um we have major concerns with traffic uh right now uh there's three schools over there, as I mentioned, the largest employer in Winchester.

Uh Lowe's is in there, there's already a ton of residential back there.

Um when there's an event at the school, you can't even get to your house.

Uh the step-out streets that are planned are not enough.

Um you need to widen the structure if you're gonna if you want to do that.

Um, but it it just doesn't seem like it will work in that area.

Uh I'm representing a lot of the residents in in the neighborhood already.

Um, you know, we'd love to see more development, but we need concrete plans for transportation.

Uh I challenge any of you to go over there at you know, school drop off uh when that's happening and take a look at that, or even better, wait for uh an event at any of the schools, uh let alone all three, and then try to drive through there.

Uh it's very difficult.

Um we'd like to see more development, but you definitely need more stuff uh step-out streets and what's shown there, and with that development taking place before that infrastructure is in place is also another area that will cause major headaches.

So just wanted to throw that up there.

Anyone else?

Okay.

We'll close the floor for public comment.

Is there any rebuttal from the applicant?

No.

Okay.

We'll close the floor to the commission for discussion and possible move.

Rob, this is just another phase of what had already been approved years previously, correct?

This is nothing new.

Correct.

It's another phase of what was approved when bought one was proposing for development.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, ma'am.

I'd like to make a motion.

Go ahead.

I make a motion to approve the preliminary development plan for the proposed 198 single family resident development to be located on the back 42.70 acres in the property located at 2860 Lexington Road, extends by gives some way in frontier way based on the fact that the property is anticipated as Plan B neighborhood, which designates a mixture of using including single family uses.

The project will be continuum of the single family neighborhood located on Gibson Way.

The plan has been through technical review and meets the requirement as found within the Winchester Clark County development and subdivision regulations.

Second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion passes.

Staff, I just encourage you to have those discussions with the school board and get that road to Lexington because that's gonna help tremendously.

Next, we'll move into our public hearing B.

Uh reviewing amended development plan for the 94.86 acre plan development zone property located at 2500 miles road, consisting of single family, multi-family, and commercial use.

First phase A total of 69 family, single family lots.

The applicants uh submitted it.

And then it's been an amended development plan for the 94.36 acre plan development zone property.

Um the whole thing consists of single family, multifamily, and commercial use.

The original development plan was reviewed in conjunction with the zoning map amendment application reviewed and approved at the September 2nd, 2025 planning commission meeting during the September 2025 meeting, the planning commission motion to recommend approval for the rezoning, and the commission also motioned to approve the preliminary development plan.

So that's noted and you know the language is shown in the staff report.

Um you'll see that the existing zoning is plan development, and um the uh there's a sample motion to approve and example motion to deny some of the changes that uh taking place.

Uh you'll see I included both the I included both the plan that was approved in 2025 and also the plan that is up for tonight.

And so one of the the changes you'll see is the cul-de-sac previously.

Um I apologize.

Uh previously, these streets looped onto the main street here.

Uh now they would like to cul-de-sac those lots, and also there is they'd also like to change the the front yard setback on the lots on the on the 69 lots as well.

I'll have the applicant come forward and you can speak a little bit more about the the different changes or amendments.

Um but those are the two that staff noted.

The setbacks and also the cul-de-sac lots.

How much of a setback?

Correct that at all.

Sorry, Mr.

What was your question?

The the setbacks, how much were the setback changes?

Um it was from 50 foot to 30 foot, and the reason for that, Mr.

Ward from Palmer Engineering is here, he could probably speak more intelligently about this, but once they got the plan approved, uh, and they got into kind of the grading permit and the changes in the elevation in order for the lots to appropriately have housing that was going to be commercially feasible essentially.

Um we need this variance or this change from the originally approved plan, it's not really a variance because it's plan development, but just this change uh to allow the houses to sit on the topography the way it exists.

So that's not like words out.

I'm happy to let Mr.

Ward talk about it because he can do so better, but it's essentially has to do with the topography of the way.

Okay.

Basically, with a further setback, it was difficult to keep the houses at road level or higher, about three and thirty feet.

We keep it consistent, we keep the houses kind of on the same elevation along the roadway.

Is that for all 69 lots?

Yes.

All right.

The change in setbacks is for all 69.

Yes.

The applicant like that, anything else?

No, other than this did go back through technical review committee.

Uh they did approve obviously the changes, you know, do change some of the road layouts as well, and fire was there and make comments on the plan.

Uh the other change.

I think this was holding you before, but there's actually now shown on your plan the red line or actually the phases of the development.

So just so you can anticipate when we come back the next time with a subdivision plat, you know, chances are there's not gonna be more changes.

Uh, but you see the first phase, and so um I think my belief is staff can probably approve those subdivision plans now as long as they're in accordance with this plan.

So you may not see a change until after these first phases are actually developed, if that makes sense.

So it is plan development.

If the developer needs to make any alterations, they will come back, but we're showing you kind of where the phases are so you can anticipate uh when when those things will take place.

So Rob, sorry, I couldn't see it's not for discussion.

No, but I I couldn't really just follow in what were the changes to the cul-de-sac?

Yeah, so I thought I I included the uh the plan that was attached from 25, but what I did is I included the plan without the red lines, the plan with the red lines.

But but these loop the cul-de-sac lots originally looped onto the main road.

That's the original.

So the changes is that area that for the cul-de-sac are those were moves before loops for now, cul-de-sac.

Correct.

So Mr.

Rump, why didn't we change that to not loop all the way around?

It never looped all the way around, so those were basically two certain they were two certain they were circled.

So this, if you can see my cursor, this looped back to the road here, and then this move back to the road here.

I'm not I'm not positive that this is the exact plan that was approved, but it shows the loops, but it shows the loops that are the cul-de-sac and showing that which one are you wanting?

The cul-de-sac, which were before you and there's it's not adding new lots, it's not increasing density, it's just changing the layout of that.

So it changes the lot configurations, and then it changed the setbacks from 50 to 30 feet.

But what was the purpose of not going all the way around?

Were we never gonna go all the way around?

Go ahead, right?

Topography, right?

Oh yeah, extra connection on the road tied the topography down the accessory.

Well, I remember we talked about topography because of septic tanks and wondering where we could put those and moving the houses forward also helps to get more room in the back for the second chunks.

So if it helps so if you wanted to add a contingency on the on the approval of the amendment, you can use the topography as a deciding fact.

This helps with the dealing with the topography away.

So we're not changing the size of the lot at all, just moving the setbacks.

The lots are staying comparable in size.

I mean the shapes are a little different because the cul-de-sac slot, the cul-de-sac lots now, but a few of them are a little bit there's less roads, so a few of them are a little bit larger.

And EMS had no issues.

Okay, at this time we'll open the floor to the public.

Is there anyone here that'd like to speak on this item on our agenda for or against?

Okay.

We'll close the floor for public comment.

Applicant, do you have any rebuttal?

No, sir.

Okay.

We'll open it up to the commission for discussion and possible motion.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion.

Yes, sir.

I make a motion to approve the amended preliminary development plan for the proposed multi-use development to be located at 2500 Mouse Carlin Road, amending the street layout and lot configuration for the 69 single family residential lots based on the fact that the overall development does not change the character of what was originally approved in September of 2025.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion passes.

So the applicant received final approval for the overall preliminary plan development project describing the entire subdivision at the April 2023 planning commission meeting.

Phase 1A of the development was presented and approved at the June 2025 meeting.

And the developers now wanting to move forward with phase 4A of the development, which consists of 2.93 acres located at the end of Ashton Oakway.

Phase 4A includes nine single family lots.

And so the R1B area and the mentioned standards are showing in the staff report or the lot area showing the minimum lot width and the minimum front yard and side yards.

So the front yard would be a minimum of 35, the side yards would be a minimum of 12, and both sides, both sides would be 25.

So if you have 12 on one side, you have 13 on the other.

And then the minimum rear being 25 as well.

Again, this is property zone plan development, and so I included the different uh uses that are permitted in the plan development zone, as well as the sample motion to approve or sample motion to deny, and then I have the that's the plan for for this new phase of development as well as the original plan that was approved a few years ago.

And so you can see 4A is just a small portion here at the end of Ashen Oak, and if you have any questions or comments for staff, I'll be happy to help happy to help answer this.

What exactly are the changes?

So the side that shows the whole oaks or whatever, the bigger one, right?

And then just outline what is the whole time section or so about it.

Right here.

And so I can have I think if there if there have been any changes, I'm not sure if there were any changes to this development plan.

Well, you need to be like the same stormwater model, that was a whatever so it's the same stormwater, same everything.

Yeah, the only pond shape changed a little bit, same volume remaining room for the band.

See last side of the line out jogs in a little bit or we really the only change is just in the stormwater pond.

Still store.

This is a continuation of what it already been, correct?

Correct.

In the submission.

Do you do have representation if needed?

Right.

But I I think if the planning commission has any questions, but at this time.

This time we'll open the floor for public comments.

Anyone that would like to speak.

On this side.

Okay.

We'll close the floor to the public and open it up to the commission for discussion and possible motion.

Mr.

Chair would like to make a motion.

Yes.

I make a motion to approve the development plan for phase 4A at the subdivision known as Deer Lot Development Royal Oaks for the 2.93 acres of the property addressed at 300 Royal Oak Drive, consisting of nine single family lots meeting the same dimension and area requirements as found in the R1B zoning district.

Based on the fact that the proposal is in line with the preliminary plan approved at the April 2023 meeting, and the plan has been through technical review and is found to meet the requirements of the Winchester Clark County Subdivision development regulations.

We have a motion and second.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose nay.

Motion passes.

Next we'll move into public hearing.

G reviewing a final development plan for the 1.144 acre plan development PD zone property located at 2140 Rolling Hills Lane, consisting of an office garage, metal fabrication shop, and home.

All right.

Next applicant submitted development plan consisting of an office, garage, metal fabrication shop, and a home for the property located at 2140 Rolling Hills Lane.

Property was part of the rezoning application that was reviewed and approved at the September 2nd, 2025 planning commission meeting.

Property is zone plan development.

Article 7.3 of the zoning ordinance was is also included in this staff report for more review.

And sample motion to approve or deny as office in the staff report if you choose to use it.

And then this development plan.

Yeah, so you can see this Lexington Community College, Kentucky.

That's the BCT property BCTC property.

The only thing that I think would be needed to, in addition to the plan.

I don't I mean, just double check to make sure anything was noted.

It's just the landscaping.

I see for some of the parking islands would be some of the landscape population.

I've shown the landscaping on the we can discuss it, but whatever.

I don't think it you know Bobby can correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as it meets the requirements in the zoning ordinance, we'll be fine.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair Brian comments on behalf of the applicant.

This is a pretty simple uh development plan.

Um craft, as you know, they have a facility on the other end of the of the uh uh Rolly Heels Lane.

Uh they are wanting to, I think this is a little bit smaller a lot in it.

A little bit smaller, they're wanting to move to this particular side.

Uh Mr.

Sandberg comes in from Germany.

That's the reason I don't want there to be a misnomer that we're trying to build a house and put a big building out back.

It's actually going to be an office, but it's going to have some living quarters in here.

He travels from Germany, I believe.

Is that correct?

And stays so he's an employee.

He also comes over, and we wanted to have the flexibility of not having to have the office that that operates it and have the flexibility if he needs to stay there or live there.

Uh it's pretty simple.

We're just asking for this 1.44 uh acre section just to uh put the building up, put an office space and have some living uh quarters in there.

I think it's about as simple as it can get it, but anyone from the public that would like to speak for or against this.

Okay.

We'll close the public uh comment and open it up to the commission for review discussion and possible motion.

Mr.

Golan, I would like to ask how legally I know that it's a zone professional development, but how can we have one residence not the standalone in the whole industrial park?

Is there well?

I I don't from what I'm hearing, it's not actually a resident uh in the proof it's a it's an with accommodate occasional accommodation.

I don't see a problem with it.

I mean, the that zone is so wide open.

Thank you.

So just to say it earlier, you know, as long as it's meeting the interior and perimeter requirement for landscaping, they can add that after this meeting and just have to make sure it meets required.

I make a motion to approve the final development plan for the 1.14 acre property located at 213 Welling Grove's Lane as described at the hearing consisting of an office, garage, metal by the police shop, and home based on the fact that development plan has been through technical viewers finding usual requirements this time within the Winchester Clark County Subdivision of Development Regulations.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed nay.

Motion passes.

If not, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

All those in favor say aye.

I mean we had uh quarter.

I took the pictures over the mr.