1. A.
   The purpose or intent of this district is to assist in the implementation of the Boone County Comprehensive Plan and the 2013 Houston-Donaldson Study. Specifically, the purpose of this overlay district in conjunction with the underlying zoning district and ARTICLE 15 of the Boone County Zoning Regulations is to:

   1. 1.
      To provide a framework to guide appropriate development for future growth in a key location in Boone County.
   2. 2.
      To further detail and compliment the Comprehensive Plan for this area because of the vital nature of the area.
   3. 3.
      To evaluate potential development in terms of land use, traffic and water/sewer in order to avoid overloading infrastructure.
   4. 4.
      To provide architectural design review and special district signage regulations that provide for appropriate exterior appearance to the general public and which exhibit excellence in design, and encourage overall development themes based on land use and locational considerations.

Effective on: 12/20/2022

1. A.
   The Houston-Donaldson Study Corridor Overlay District (HDO) is an overlay zoning district shown on the Boone County Zoning Map to which it is applied; the rights and obligations herein as set forth and in addition to those specified by ARTICLE 15 of the Zoning Regulations, the underlying zoning district and the described in the 2013 Houston-Donaldson Study. The boundaries or location of the HDO are identified in Figure 1.1 of the 2013 Houston-Donaldson Study and shall be designated by the suffix HDO. The current zoning of the overlay district shall also be identified on the Boone County Zoning Map.

Effective on: 12/20/2022

1. A.
   The Houston-Donaldson Study Corridor Overlay District (HDO) application and review requirements shall be applied to all properties identified on Figure 1.1 of the 2013 Houston-Donaldson Study and other applicable articles of this zoning order. Specific land uses, building intensities and zoning of parcels in the study area are identified in the “Land Use Recommendations,” “Infrastructure,” “Development Design and Signage Requirements,” and “Current Zoning and Recommended Changes” chapters of the 2013 Houston-Donaldson Study. Application and review procedural requirements are specified in the 2013 Houston-Donaldson Study as well as other appropriate articles in this zoning order.

Effective on: 12/20/2022

1. A.
   Procedure

   1. 1.
      Two basic review tracks are possible within the Houston – Donaldson Overlay District. Portions of the Study Area that are outside of the Houston-Donaldson Overlay District shall follow the standard review procedures outlined in the Boone County Zoning Regulations and Boone County Subdivision Regulations. For the areas within the Houston-Donaldson Overlay District, an expedited “short” review process is available to encourage new development, new uses, physical alterations to a building and/or site, and redevelopment to comply with the Study’s recommendations. A “long” review process is available for proposals that do not comply with the Study’s recommendations. These two review tracks are as follows:

      1. a.
         Short Review Process: Administrative site plan review per ARTICLE 30, subdivision review as applicable per the Boone County Subdivision Regulations, and the Design Review process described in Section 1703.B upon the Long Range Planning Committee determining that the Short Review Process Criteria outlined below have been fulfilled. Certain use changes that are subject to the Tenant Finish procedure and projects which are developed in accordance with a previously approved Concept Development Plan may follow the Short Review Process as described further below.
      2. b.
         Long Review Process: Prior to the administrative Site Plan, Subdivision Review, and Design Review processes, the development proposal must be approved through the Concept Development Plan or Zoning Map Amendment process per ARTICLE 3 and/or ARTICLE 15. Both processes involve a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Florence City Council or the Boone County Fiscal Court, and a final decision by the Florence City Council or Boone County Fiscal Court, depending on the jurisdiction of the request.
2. B.
   Review Processes Overview

   1. 1.
      Step One

      1. a.
         Pre-application Meeting: Applicant meets with staff for a pre-application conference. Applicant presents proposed uses or project to staff and is informed of the Houston – Donaldson Study requirements.
   2. 2.
      Step Two

      1. a.
         Long Range Planning/Comp Plan Committee Determination: The Long Range Planning Committee determines, at an announced Committee meeting, whether the proposal follows the Short Review Process per Step Three or Long Review Process per Step Four, based upon the submittal information. This determination is given in written form and is based upon the Criteria for Determining Review Process outlined below. Action by the full Boone County Planning Commission is not necessary for Step Two.
   3. 3.
      Step Three

      1. a.
         Short Review Process: If the determined process is the Short Review Process, then the applicant applies for Major Site Plan or Minor Site Plan review based on ARTICLE 30, and/or subdivision review, and the Design Review process as described in Section 1703.B.
   4. 4.
      Step Four

      1. a.
         Long Review Process: If it is determined that the applicant is to follow the Long Review Process, the applicant submits an application through either the Concept Development Plan or Zoning Map Amendment procedure. This includes public notification, a public hearing before the Planning Commission, committee review and action, full Planning Commission action, and final action by the either the City of Florence City Council or Boone County Fiscal Court depending on the jurisdiction of the request. When the Long Review Process is required, the administrative site plan review subdivision review and design review outlined in Step Three occur after approval of the Concept Development Plan or Zoning Map Amendment application.
3. C.
   Criteria for Determining Review Process

   1. 1.
      Tenant Finishes:

      1. a.
         Proposals that only involve a change to a use that is in compliance with the approved Concept Development Plan, and which will occupy space in an existing building with no physical alterations or additions to the building or site (excluding signage) are subject to the administrative Tenant Finish procedure.
   2. 2.
      Previously Approved Concept Development Plans:

      1. a.
         In the event that a developed site or a previously approved Concept Development Plan is proposed to change from its initial use to a new use and/or the purpose changes to the site or building, the proposed use or improvements shall be evaluated by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall evaluate any previously approved Concept Development Plan, conditions of approval, minutes, letters, and all other evidence. The Zoning Administrator shall determine whether the proposed use requires application for a Concept Development Plan or Change in Concept Development Plan.
      2. b.
         Concept Development Plan approvals that were granted prior to the adoption of The Houston – Donaldson Study are valid as originally approved, including any supplemental conditions of approval. Projects proposed to be developed pursuant to a previously approved Concept Development Plan may follow the Short Review Process.
   3. 3.
      New Development, Site Redevelopment, Changes or Additions to Building or Site:

      1. a.
         The Short Review Process may be followed provided the Long Range Planning Committee determines that:

         1. 1.
            The proposal follows the recommendations in the Land Use Recommendations chapter in this chapter as they relate to the specific site and surrounding vicinity. Proposed uses that are not listed in the underlying district text may still qualify for the Short Review Process if they follow the recommendations in this document. Proposed uses that are listed in the underlying district text (Principally Permitted Uses or Conditional Uses) may not necessarily qualify for the Short Review Process if they do not follow the Land Use Recommendations chapter. The Goals and Objectives of both the Houston – Donaldson Study and the current Boone County Comprehensive Plan may also be consulted in this determination.
         2. 2.
            The proposal follows all applicable standards and requirements in SECTION 1707. The proposal also follows any applicable provisions in the Section 3407.5.
         3. 3.
            The proposal does not present unknown or undue impacts on infrastructure or public services based on the recommendations in the Houston – Donaldson Study, such as water, sanitary and storm sewer, traffic impacts, public schools, and emergency services.
      2. b.
         If the Long Range Planning/Comp Plan Committee determines that any of the above criteria are not met, then the proposal must follow the Long Review Process. The property owner and the Long Range Planning/Comp Plan Committee can agree to conditions in writing to make the proposal consistent with the Houston – Donaldson Study.

Effective on: 12/20/2022

1. A.
   Introduction

   1. 1.
      The Boone County Planning Commission updated the Boone County Comprehensive Plan in 2012 and is updating the Boone County Zoning Regulations at the same time as this study is being written. While the Houston – Donaldson Study is not intended to replace either the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Regulations, it is intended to compliment those documents and to suggest specific strategies and land uses to fulfill the intentions those documents and their respective visions.
   2. 2.
      Many of the land use strategies in this chapter are the result of suggestions from the consultants that the Planning Commission hired during the planning stages of the Houston – Donaldson Study to look at the traffic issues and marketability of the Study Area.
   3. 3.
      This section is divided into eight subsections, one for each Subarea as defined in the Background Studies. Each section will look at the Future Land Use designations for each Subarea, as well as development and redevelopment strategies. These strategies will include specific land use recommendations and suggestions for possible development scenarios where applicable.
2. B.
   Development and Redevelopment Opportunities/Strategies

   1. 1.
      Subarea One

      1. a.
         The Future Land Use for Subarea One is entirely Commercial (Figure 17-1). According to the Comprehensive Plan, this includes, “Retail, corporate and professional office, interchange commercial, indoor commercial, restaurants, services, etc.” Based on the existing uses in the Subarea, the entire Subarea is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.

Figure 17-1
Subarea One Future Land Use

2. 1. 2. b.
         Subarea One is largely built out and has little development opportunity. What opportunity does exist can mostly be found on Merchants Street. This area is not one for primary retail development and should be developed as support services due to issues of limited access and visibility. Examples of this include the automobile-related development that has already occurred in this area or possibly a long term care facility for seniors, provided that such a facility is not set up as a short/long term senior residential facility. The facility is envisioned to be a place where patients from the Gateway Rehabilitation Center could go for recuperation before either going home or to a permanent care facility.
      3. c.
         There are also available vacant parcels near the corner of KY 18 and Woodspoint Drive, one of which is occupied by a former gas station. It is recommended that these properties be combined and developed as a single project site. This single project site is recommended to be retail commercial in nature and may or may not include the continued use of the gas station. This site has excellent development and/or redevelopment opportunity due to its high visibility from I-75 and its easy access. Existing parcels on the opposite side of Woodspoint Drive should be redeveloped in the same manner. The development/redevelopment of the Houston Road/Woodspoint Drive intersection area is recommended to be aesthetically harmonious with existing surrounding land uses and cleaned up environmentally as much as is needed for new development.
      4. d.
         It is not recommended that any new “big box” commercial development happen in Subarea One. If one of the existing large scale retail centers should vacate, the site should be redeveloped as such or, alternatively, could be redeveloped as a campus-like setting for office uses. In addition, no permanent residential development, either single-family or multi-family, is recommended in Subarea One.
      5. e.
         In summary, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendations for the future of Subarea One:

         1. 1.
            Future development and/or redevelopment in Subarea One should be of commercial or office type land uses and not of light industrial or residential uses.
         2. 2.
            Support services on Merchants Street, such as automobile service related development, offices, or short/long term senior residential facilities.
         3. 3.
            The properties at the KY 18/Woodspoint Drive intersection should be combined and developed as a single entity.
         4. 4.
            The development of the KY 18/Woodspoint Drive intersection as a retail node.
         5. 5.
            New development in Subarea One should be aesthetically harmonious with existing surrounding land uses so as to fit into the built landscape.
   2. 2.
      Subarea Two

      1. a.
         The Future Land Use designation for Subarea Two is entirely Recreation (Figure 17-2). According to the Comprehensive Plan, this includes, among other things, golf courses. As Subarea Two is made up of entirely of the World of Golf recreation center, the entire Subarea is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.

Figure 17-2
Subarea Two Future Land Use

2. 2. 2. b.
         This is the World of Golf facility. Florence City Council made the long term decision to retain ownership of the World of Golf recreation center as green space in the heart of the City, a decision which was detailed in the Background Study. The result was the City’s decision to invest in the facility to ensure it remains a viable regional attraction for years to come. The World of Golf center continues to be an active recreation green space.
      3. c.
         The Planning Commission does not recommend any changes in the land use for Subarea Two. The Planning Commission does recommend, and in fact the City requires, that the World of Golf center maintain pedestrian access to the cemetery on the site. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends that environmental practices for the World of Golf center continue to be reviewed and updated as required.
   3. 3.
      Subarea Three

      1. a.
         The Future Land Use for Subarea Three is made up of two designations (Figure 17-3). Roughly two thirds of the property is Business Park while the remainder is designated as Industrial. Both of these designations allow office, warehousing and research, and light industrial/manufacturing land uses. The Business Park designation additionally allows for office and research uses and is intended to be developed in a campus like setting. Based on the allowed uses and on what is known of the Airport’s wishes for the future development of this property, the entire Subarea is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned appropriately.

Figure 17-3
Subarea Three Future Land Use

2. 3. 2. b.
         Subarea Three is the Airport Property. The Airport prefers that this property develop in an airport related light industrial/commercial/office land use, such as the ZF Steering Systems expansion. The zoning and future land use for the Airport Property is in place for this type of development. This development should happen in a park like or campus setting with large building setbacks, low floor area ratio, pedestrian and recreation facilities, consistent architecture and signage, extensive landscaping, and an attractive entrance. Any pedestrian facilities should link up and connect to the CVG Trail. This trail is the first leg of the proposed “Friends of CVG Trail”, a proposed 22-mile paved trail that is envisioned to eventually completely circle CVG Airport.
      3. c.
         Most of the Airport Property is undeveloped. However, there are two parcels that ZF Steering Systems utilized to expand their business. ZF Steering Systems leases this property from the Airport. ZF Steering System’s lease arrangement may be a model for development for the rest of the Airport Property, as it was a unique partnership between the company, the City of Florence, Boone County Fiscal Court, and the Kenton County Airport Board. On the other hand, although the Airport has no plans to sell any of the Airport Property at this time, that possibility exists. In any case, the land use recommendations do not change.
      4. d.
         There is a tremendous opportunity for new growth on the Airport Property. However, as this property is in the way of one of the CVG runways, none of the future development will be residential. In addition the development that does occur will have to adhere to height restrictions as determined by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and the Kentucky Airport Zoning Commission. The Future Land Use map and the Airport both agree that the property should develop in an aviation-related or compatible commercial, light industrial, or office land uses.
      5. e.
         While there is tremendous opportunity for new development in this subarea, it is important to note that the identified development parcels currently do not have water or sewer services readily available. This issue will need to be addressed before successful development in this subarea can occur.
      6. f.
         In summary, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendations for the future of Subarea Three:

         1. 1.
            The land should be developed as aviation related or compatible commercial, light industrial, or office uses.
         2. 2.
            The development of Subarea Three should take place in a consistent, campus-like setting.
         3. 3.
            Pedestrian facilities should be developed and connected to the CVG Trail.
   4. 4.
      Subarea Four

      1. a.
         The Future Land Use for Subarea Four is made up of three designations (Figure 17-4). Most of the Subarea is designated as Commercial. The northern portion of the Subarea is designated as Industrial. Finally, there is a small piece of property designated as Public/Institutional. Looking at the uses allowed in these districts, the entire Subarea is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.

Figure 17-4
Subarea Four Future Land Use

2. 4. 2. b.
         Most of Subarea Four is built out and economically viable. The cluster of office buildings on Meijer Drive are important to the city’s and the region’s marketing efforts for gaining corporate or corporate support offices. It is recommended that the unfinished retail building be completed and that office space be leased. In the alternative, the unfinished retail building could be razed and developed for office or medical office type uses.
      3. c.
         It is recommended that future land use efforts in Subarea Four be focused on redevelopment and that, if and when such development occurs, that it aesthetically fits in with the surrounding land uses.
      4. d.
         In summary, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendations for the future of Subarea Four:

         1. 1.
            Future development and/or redevelopment in Subarea Four should be of commercial or office type land uses and not of light industrial or residential uses, except for the light industrial area on Spiral Drive.
         2. 2.
            Existing office and retail structures on Meijer Drive be either completed or occupied.
         3. 3.
            That redevelopment in Subarea Four aesthetically fit in with the existing land uses.
   5. 5.
      Subarea Five

      1. a.
         The Future Land Use for Subarea Five is made up of two designations (Figure 17-5). Most of the Subarea is designated as Commercial. However, the St. Elizabeth campus on the south end of the Subarea is designated as Public/Institutional. Looking at the uses allowed in these districts, the entire Subarea is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.

Figure 17-5
Subarea Five Future Land Use

2. 5. 2. b.
         There is a significant redevelopment opportunity in Subarea Five in the current Garden Ridge site. Although Garden Ridge is in operation at the time of this writing, the tenant only occupies half of the structure, meaning that there is a vacant big box retail space available for redevelopment. One possibility for the future of the site is that, if Garden Ridge ever was to close, the St. Elizabeth hospital could buy that site and expand northward. Another option would be for a new commercial or public facility use to move into the vacant half of the building or to redevelop the site. Both scenarios for the potential redevelopment of the Garden Ridge site are within the vision of the Houston – Donaldson Study. Either of these scenarios are acceptable to the Planning Commission. If St. Elizabeth does expand onto the current Garden Ridge site, then the Public/Institutional designation should be extended to the north in future updates of the Comprehensive Plan.
      3. c.
         Subarea Five also has a development opportunity between Lowe’s and the Citibank property. The vacant parcel is a potential new commercial area. Possibilities for the site include fast food, coffee shops, or local retail or convenience stores with or without an attached gas station. All of these uses were noted in the market study as needed assets on north Houston Road and would cater to the morning and afternoon traffic that Subarea Five experiences. Care should be taken to assure property access to the back portion of the property if and when development happens.
      4. d.
         In any case, Beam Boulevard should be extended and turned perpendicularly to intersect with Houston Road. If this were done and then connected to the St. Elizabeth property to the south, this would solve an internal traffic problem for the hospital and increase overall traffic flow and connectivity (Figure 17-6). This proposed intersection with Houston Road should be across from the proposed road on the Marydale Property.

Figure 17-6
Proposed Beam Boulevard Extensions

2. 5. 5. e.
         In summary, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendations for the future of Subarea Five:

         1. 1.
            Future development and/or redevelopment in Subarea Five should be of commercial or office type land uses and not of light industrial or residential uses.
         2. 2.
            Any future development and/or redevelopment in Subarea Five should be made to conform and blend in with the existing built environment.
         3. 3.
            The Garden Ridge building should either fill in or be taken over and utilized by St. Elizabeth hospital or other health care provider.
         4. 4.
            If the Garden Ridge site is taken over by St. Elizabeth, the Future Land Use designation of the site should be changed to Public/Institutional.
         5. 5.
            The vacant parcel between Lowe’s and Citibank should be developed as multiple, smaller scale shops, such as local retail or food/coffee establishments.
         6. 6.
            Beam Boulevard should be extended onto the vacant parcel and turned ninety degrees to intersect with Houston Road.
   6. 6.
      Subarea Six

      1. a.
         Most of the Future Land Use for Subarea Six is made up of Recreation (Figure 17-7). This accounts for the Turfway Park race track and an adjoining property fronting on Houston Road. There is also a small Commercial designation in front of Turfway’s parking lot. In reviewing the land uses allowed in these districts, the entire Subarea is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.

Figure 17-7
Subarea Six Future Land Use

2. 6. 2. b.
         Subarea Six is the Turfway Park area. The owners of Turfway remain committed to horse racing but are also prepared to move forward with a business plan that adds a casino and entertainment complex to the horse racing business, should Kentucky approve casino gambling. This arrangement of a casino associated with a horse race track is a called a racino, which is allowed by the underlying zoning of the property.
      3. c.
         Turfway Park’s property adjoins Houston Road. This area is subject to an approved Concept Development Plan for a future entertainment/mini convention center, but it could be used in the future for local commercial and small business land uses.
      4. d.
         There is a third option for Turfway Park if horse racing and casino gambling fall through in the future, and that is complete redevelopment of Subarea Six. If that ends up being the case, the Planning Commission recommends that the redevelopment be complementary to and at the same mixed use ratio as that recommended for the Marydale Property (Subarea Seven) below.
      5. e.
         Regardless of the future land uses, redevelopment, or development of the Subarea, there are several issues worth considering for the future in Subarea Six. The newly completed Aero Parkway intersects at Turfway Road across from the NKY Realtors Association building. A future road and pedestrian connection to Aero Parkway and the associated CVG Trail through Subarea Six should be considered. This connection could be extended through the adjacent Marydale property to Queensway Drive to connect the Cherry Hill subdivision to the Study Area. Additionally, Turfway Road should be redesigned at some point to remove the existing 90-degree curve. This would result in a triangular parcel that would be approximately 5 acres in area. Turfway Park may consider donating this resulting acreage as potential green space. This would serve to help protect the Gunpowder Creek watershed and act as a passive park that should be connected to the CVG Trail.
      6. f.
         In summary, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendations for the future of Subarea Six:

         1. 1.
            The existing recreational use or horse racing business should be maintained and improved. One way involves the expansion of the business into a racino if allowed by the State of Kentucky.
         2. 2.
            If the horse racing business vacates the site, Subarea Six should be redeveloped in a mixed use format similar in nature to the Marydale site (Subarea Seven) to the north.
         3. 3.
            The ninety-degree curve in Turfway Road should be redesigned and softened.
         4. 4.
            The resulting leftover property after Turfway Road’s realignment should become a passive park.
         5. 5.
            A connection to the future Phase II of the CVG Trail should be made, potentially from the passive park resulting from the potential redesign of Turfway Road.
   7. 7.
      Subarea Seven

      1. a.
         No Subarea in the Houston – Donaldson Study Area faces such potential uncertain new development more than Subarea Seven, otherwise known as Marydale (Figure 17-8). That is because the Planning Commission is recommending a very flexible future development for future land uses, their ratio, and their placement on the site. The site lends itself to any number of conceptual developments. Such concepts could more than double in size if combined with the adjacent Turfway Park property (Subarea Six).

Figure 17-8
Subarea Seven Future Land Use

2. 7. 2. b.
         Elements of the approved Concept Development Plan are reflected in both the 2035 Future Land Use Map. The 2035 Future Land Use map retains the five Diocesan sites as Public Facilities, but most of the eastern two-thirds of Marydale is shown as Commercial, including all of the road frontages of Houston and Donaldson. The tributary of West Fork Dry Creek that drains Lake Mary and the entire site is coded as Developmentally Sensitive. A large wooded area between the Passionists Nuns Convent and the north end of Lake Mary is shown as Urban Density Residential, while the mixed fields and woods to the southwest of the Seminary and abutting the Turfway property is shown as Industrial.
      3. c.
         The Urban Density Residential and Industrial designations shown on the zoning and 2035 Future Land Use maps stem from recommendations made in the 1992 Houston – Donaldson Study, which called for an east/west road connection from Houston to Turfway along the north side of Turfway Park. Even if that connection is not made, the residential use is still reasonable for that part of the site, as it abuts the existing Gallenstein residential property to the southwest and could connect via Queensway to the large Cherry Hill subdivision on the north side of Donaldson. The Industrial One designation in the rear acreage of the Marydale property makes little sense for many reasons, including: (1) it is landlocked, (2) it abuts existing and potential future residential, (3) it would affect a significant portion of the drainage area for Lake Mary and hence Dry Run, and (4) it would be a disincentive for businesses looking to develop office space there, which is the primary goal of the approved 2002 CDP. The Industrial One designation on the Future Land Use map should be removed during the next update of the Boone County Comprehensive Plan.
      4. d.
         It is recommended that Marydale be developed as a single development and not parceled up into smaller sections. The Planning Commission recommends that most of Subarea Seven be rezoned into a single mixed use zoning district of UR-2/O-2/C-1/PD (Figure 17-9). This is envisioned to allow a wide variety of future development potentials.

Figure 17-9
Recommended Marydale Zoning

2. 7. 5. e.
         In terms of future development in Subarea Seven, everything hinges on the disposition of the Marydale property. At present, it is one of the most scenic sites in the Northern Kentucky region and features tree-lined drives, lake/wetland, broad open spaces, woodlots, and unexpected vistas. The Seminary building is unique, both architecturally and historically. The Seminary building, together with the Retreat House, could form the heart of a multitude of different redevelopment concepts.
      6. f.
         The office use approved in the existing Concept Development Plan is appropriate, although development of six separate office sites on the property with no other uses does not serve the property well. A mixed-use development focused around a strong corporate campus is more appropriate. A nearly self-contained town could be planned around a major headquarters, including high-density residential, and service-oriented business. Such a development should maximize the site’s existing amenities (e.g., Camp Mary and the mixed forest/open space) and utilize the existing tree lined drives for pedestrian access both within and outside of the site. Additionally, anything built on the Marydale site should avoid putting additional strain on the already heavily developed Dry Creek Watershed.
      7. g.
         Within the framework of the recommended UR-2/O-2/C-1/PD zoning, it is recommended that the Marydale property generally develop with the following mix of land uses:

         1. 1.
            Residential = 25-35%
         2. 2.
            Office = 25-35%
         3. 3.
            Green Space = 20-25%
         4. 4.
            Small Scale Commercial = 20-25%
      8. h.
         As noted, the Planning Commission is flexible on the exact mix of land uses within this general framework and encourages creative designs.
      9. i.
         It is recommended that the office space develop as a major office campus, such as a headquarters of a regional or national scale company, and not be divided up around the site. One possible consideration is that the office campus incorporates at least the main block and formal façade of the historic St. Pius Seminary building.
      10. j.
          It is recommended that Lake Mary and portions of its tributaries and downstream area remain as green space. This would serve the purposes of watershed protection, site beautification, and buffering the west side of adjacent existing single family residential in Subarea Eight. The green space could also connect to the Marydale Priests Cemetery, which will remain on the site and is an important landscape feature which needs to be protected in the future. The existing tree lined drives should remain as pedestrian/recreational paths, although light vehicular access would be acceptable for maintenance of the lake.
      11. k.
          It is recommended that Lake Mary be encircled by a non-motorized path. This would effectively create a passive park in the middle of Marydale. A civic/town commons could then be considered for the bluff overlooking the lake on the east side of St. Pius Seminary. This location has a scenic view of the lake and could function as a gathering space for both office workers and residents. The monumental facade of the seminary forms a backdrop for the commons, which has a commanding view to the east over Lake Mary and beyond. Taken together, they form a combination of unique amenities that would be a significant attractor in the region, especially when marketed in conjunction with an expanded Turfway entertainment destination.
      12. l.
          The west side of Houston Road is seen as local commercial with frontage primarily on the internal road. The south side of Donaldson Highway would have a mix of local commercial and multi-family residential land uses, serving as both support services and buffer for the residential on the north half of the Marydale site and existing residential and schools on the north side of Donaldson Highway. Residential development on the Marydale property should be a mix of higher density (e.g., condos, senior housing, multifamily, etc.), rather than low density single family.
      13. m.
          If Subarea Six should redevelop in the future, there is a potential interconnectedness of Subareas Six and Seven and it is worth looking at both Subareas together to consider their potential connectivity. This Study proposes several suggestions for infrastructure improvements to tie Subareas Six and Seven together.
      14. n.
          Road and pedestrian connections are critical to the future development of Subareas Six and Seven. One recommendation for the combined Subareas includes a major connection through Marydale from Queensway Drive south across Turfway Road to Beam Boulevard as well as a connection to the west through the Turfway site to Aero Parkway. The exact location of the westward connection cannot be identified as it is dependent on Caesars’ plans for the Turfway site.
      15. o.
          As noted in the recommendations for Subarea Six, the existing 90-degree bend in Turfway Road on the west side of Turfway Park should be redesigned with consideration given to making a public park/CVG Trail access site from the triangular parcel that will remain (Figure 17-10). It is recommended that a secondary road system encircle both sites from Queensway Drive east along Donaldson Highway and south along Turfway Road. From there, it would cross the Turfway property to Aero Parkway. Both roads are recommended to include pedestrian facilities to permit pedestrian access through the sites, to the CVG Trail, and adjacent developments such as Citibank.

Figure 17-10
Proposed Turfway Road Realignment

2. 7. 16. p.
          In summary, the Planning Commission recommends the following for the future of Subarea Seven:

          1. 1.
             Marydale should be developed as a single campus-like mixed use development using a single mixed use zoning category called UR-2/O-2/C-1/PD, as shown in Figure 17-9.
          2. 2.
             The future development of Marydale should be at the recommended mixed use ratio.
          3. 3.
             The future Office development should be developed as an office campus and not be divided up.
          4. 4.
             The main block and formal façade of the historic St. Pius Seminary building should be incorporated into an office design.
          5. 5.
             Existing tree lined access roads on the site should be preserved and saved as non-motorized facilities.
          6. 6.
             Lake Mary should be buffered by green space and surrounded by non-motorized facilities.
          7. 7.
             Green space should be developed on the site to buffer existing adjacent single family residential located in Subarea Eight.
          8. 8.
             A road connection from Queensway Drive to Aero Parkway, as described above, should be constructed.
   8. 8.
      Subarea 8

      1. a.
         Most of the Future Land Use designation in Subarea Eight is Business Park (Figure 17-11), which reflects the mostly Light Industrial nature of the Subarea’s land uses, which also includes recreational and residential. The Future Land Use map does designate two Commercial areas that are intended to serve as local business nodes.

Figure 17-11
Subarea Eight Future Land Use

2. 8. 2. b.
         A pocket of a few single family homes is tucked away on O’Hara Lane and shielded from the vehicular and industrial activity surrounding it. Care should be taken in order to continue to shield this residential enclave from the impacts of development and redevelopment. If the single family use should ever discontinue, the Future Land Use designation of the residential section should be reevaluated.
      3. c.
         Subarea Eight represents the northernmost edge of the Houston – Donaldson Study Area. It serves as the northwestern entry point into the Houston – Donaldson Study Area and has very little land available for new development.
      4. d.
         Phase II of the CVG Trail is proposed to run north through this area from its current terminus at Turfway Road and Aero Parkway. There are several opportunities on Airport owned property to incorporate parking for this phase of the CVG Trail and connections to the trail system should be encouraged where possible. It is recommended that Phase II of the CVG Trail be constructed. To that end, the Planning Commission encourages Friends of CVG to work with public agencies for possible funding opportunities.
      5. e.
         There are a few opportunities for infill development consisting of industrial/business park developments in the Subarea that have been identified. One small pocket of commercial is suggested at the intersection of Turfway Road and Donaldson Highway, while another is suggested near the intersection of O’Hara Road and Donaldson Highway. It is intended that these commercial nodes be local retail commercial development that could support the remaining residential uses along Donaldson Highway.
      6. f.
         Another issue worth considering in Subarea Eight is the John Hunt Morgan Escape Trail Markers. During the Civil War, John Hunt Morgan escaped from Kentucky through Boone County, and his route went through the modern day Subarea Eight. It is recommended that historical markers be constructed to designate points on the escape route.
      7. g.
         There is one final issue that could affect Subarea Eight. The CVG Airport has recently completed its five year Master Plan. The Airport Master Plan shows a future north-south runway on its Airport layout plan from the 2035 Master Plan. This north-south runway is described as being shown as a placeholder to “protect land use compatibility.” Under the current projected forecast scenarios, an additional runway would not be needed until beyond 2035.
      8. h.
         In summary, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendations for the future of Subarea Eight:

         1. 1.
            Existing single family residential lots on O’Hara Drive should continue to be buffered from nearby industrial uses.
         2. 2.
            Residentially zoned properties on the Airport Property should be rezoned to Airport (A) to bring them into conformance with the Future Land Use map. Phase II of the CVG Trail should be pursued.
         3. 3.
            Local retail Commercial nodes on Donaldson Highway at the intersections of Turfway Road and O’Hara Road should be developed.
         4. 4.
            Historical markers commemorating the John Hunt Morgan Escape should be erected.
         5. 5.
            Any future development on the western edge of the Subarea should respect the conceptual placement of the potential fourth CVG runway.

Effective on: 12/20/2022

1. A.
   The 2010 Boone County Comprehensive Plan contains the Goals and Objectives for the entire county. While these Goals and Objectives are important, the Houston – Donaldson Study looks at the Study Area more specifically than did the Comprehensive Plan. It is therefore important that there be further Goals and Objectives to evaluate the Study Area and help gauge the future success of the land use recommendations for the Study Area. Furthermore, the Houston – Donaldson Study’s Goals and Objectives are not intended to replace Goals and Objectives of the 2010 Boone County Comprehensive Plan but to enhance them as they apply to the Study Area.
2. B.
   In general, the Boone County Comprehensive Plan identifies the Study Area as a future business district of Boone County. The 2010 Future Land Use Map details the planned uses for the Study Area by depicting planned areas of commercial, residential, industrial, and recreational, and public facilities uses.
3. C.
   In addition to the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Element, the Business Activity, Transportation, Recreation, and Environmental Elements of the 2010 Boone County Comprehensive Plan are also important to the Houston – Donaldson Study.
4. D.
   The Business Activity Element indicates that the Houston Road corridor is one of the most important areas of Boone County for office and commercial development. This has been found to be the case during the research for the background studies. The Houston – Donaldson Study’s Goals and Objectives are geared toward helping to make sure that the successful business climate that has evolved continues while making sure that further growth is able to happen in a complementary fashion.
5. E.
   The Transportation Element and its Goals and Objectives state that the Level of Service of important roadways be maintained or improved and that roadway capacities be protected. This is especially important for the Houston Road corridor, because of its dual function of serving both substantial future development and serving through traffic demands between I-75 and developed areas of Boone County and the City of Florence. The Transportation Element encourages bicycle and pedestrian pathway systems as part of a developing suburban transportation network.
6. F.
   The Recreation Element and its Goals and Objectives indicate that recreational facilities should be provided throughout Boone County and the City of Florence through public and private efforts, as well as cooperative efforts. This is achieved in the Study Area by the presence of the World of Golf recreation center, the bike lanes on Houston Road, and the non-motorized paths that have been built in the form of sidewalks and shared use paths, especially Phase I of the CVG Trail, a facility that should be expanded in the future when possible with the construction of Phase II.
7. G.
   The Environment Element and Goals and Objectives recommend that the integrity of the natural environment be protected where possible. This is being pursued in the Houston – Donaldson Study’s Goals and Objectives through watershed protection.
8. H.
   The Goals and Objectives follow the Recommendations chapter of the Houston – Donaldson Study and serve as a checklist to gauge the future success of those land use recommendations.
9. I.
   In past editions of the Houston – Donaldson Study, one set of Goals and Objectives was applied to the entire Study Area. While this might have been adequate for the needs of the past, the Study Area is diverse enough that one set of Goals and Objectives is no longer appropriate. Analysis of the Study Area for the background studies shows us that each one of the background Study Areas has separate needs and, therefore, different Goals and Objectives. Because of this, the Goals and Objectives are divided into eight sections. Each section correlates with the background area that it references.
10. J.
    Subarea One - South Entrance

    1. 1.
       Goal: Maintain the successful business climate of the South Entrance Subarea.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Continue to consistently apply the Design Standards for future development and/or redevelopment.
          2. 2.
             Continue to support the Commercial, Office, and Industrial uses in their current locations, as well as the current zoning classifications in future editions Boone County Zoning Ordinance and future editions of the Boone County Comprehensive Plan and its Future Land Use map.
       2. b.
          Goal: Enhance the non-motorized system in the South Entrance Subarea.

          1. 1.
             Objectives:

             1. a.
                The bike lane deficiency on Houston Road near the intersection with Burlington Pike (KY 18) should be addressed.
             2. b.
                Disconnects in the sidewalk network within the Subarea should be filled in.
             3. c.
                Link the non-motorized facilities in the Subarea Three (Airport Subarea) with the non-motorized facilities in Subarea One.
       3. c.
          Goal: Protect the integrity of the Gunpowder Creek Watershed.

          1. 1.
             Objectives:

             1. a.
                Use future development and/or redevelopment of properties in the Subarea for opportunities to apply efforts to improve quality and quantity of stormwater runoff.
             2. b.
                The 100-year floodplain should be considered during redevelopment of properties and avoided entirely in the event of new development in the Subarea.
11. K.
    Subarea Two - World of Golf

    1. 1.
       Goal: The World of Golf facility is preserved and supported.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Maintain the World of Golf site in an effort to retain recreational opportunities in the City of Florence.
    2. 2.
       Goal: Protect the integrity of the Gunpowder Creek Watershed.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Urge the maintenance staff for the World of Golf facility to review groundskeeping practices to ensure that no chemicals are entering the Gunpowder Creek Watershed.
12. L.
    Subarea Three - Airport Property

    1. 1.
       A. Goal: All development that takes place in the Subarea shall be of an aviation-related and/or compatible commercial, light industrial, or office land use.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Continue to consistently apply the Design Standards for future development and/or redevelopment.
          2. 2.
             Continue to support the Commercial, Office, and Industrial uses and zoning classifications in future editions Boone County Zoning Ordinance and future editions of the Boone County Comprehensive Plan and its Future Land Use map.
    2. 2.
       Goal: Enhance the non-motorized system in the Airport Property Subarea.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Complete Phase II of the CVG Trail.
          2. 2.
             Incorporate non-motorized facilities within future developments in the Airport Subarea, making sure that they connect to existing facilities, including the CVG Trail.
          3. 3.
             Promote the existence of the CVG Trail with occasional small identification signs along the route where the trail runs parallel to developments or is visible from existing roadways in Subarea Three.
    3. 3.
       Goal: Protect the integrity of the Gunpowder Creek Watershed.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Use future development of properties in the Subarea for opportunities to apply efforts to improve stormwater runoff.
13. M.
    Subarea Four - Turfway Business Park/Houston Lakes

    1. 1.
       Goal: Maintain the successful business climate of the Subarea.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Continue to consistently apply the Design Standards for future development and/or redevelopment.
          2. 2.
             Continue to support the Commercial and Office uses and zoning classifications in future editions Boone County Zoning Ordinance and future editions of the Boone County Comprehensive Plan and its Future Land Use map.
    2. 2.
       Goal: Enhance the non-motorized system in the South Entrance Subarea.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Disconnects in the sidewalk network within the Subarea should be filled in.
          2. 2.
             Redevelopments in the Subarea should incorporate new internal sidewalks that connect to the Subarea’s sidewalk system.
    3. 3.
       Goal: Protect the integrity of the Gunpowder Creek Watershed.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Use future development and/or redevelopment of properties in the Subarea for opportunities to apply efforts to improve quality and quantity of stormwater runoff.
14. N.
    ​​​​​​​Subarea Five - North Houston Road

    1. 1.
       Goal: Enhance the Commercial, Office, and Medical activity in the North Houston Road Subarea.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Commercial uses should be designed to coordinate with surrounding land uses.

             1. a.
                The Garden Ridge site should be used or redeveloped as either a commercial or health care facility, either through the expansion of St. Elizabeth onto the site or through the development of a new medical facility.
       2. b.
          Goal: Enhance the transportation system in the North Houston Road Subarea.

          1. 1.
             Objectives:

             1. a.
                The extension of Beam Boulevard and connection to Houston Road should be considered.
             2. b.
                The extension of Beam Boulevard and its potential connection to the St. Elizabeth Hospital campus should be considered.
             3. c.
                Redevelopments in the Subarea should incorporate new internal sidewalks that connect to the Subarea’s sidewalk system.
15. O.
    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Subarea Six - Turfway Park

    1. 1.
       Goal: The gaps in the development of the Subarea should be filled in by the full utilization of the entire Property.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             The conceptual plan for the development of the vacant 20-acre parcel along Houston Road should be completed or reconsidered.
          2. 2.
             The northwest corner of the Subarea along Turfway Road should be developed.
    2. 2.
       Goal: Transportation connections in Subarea Six and Seven should occur.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Pedestrian links and roads between the Subarea and the Marydale to the north should be established.
          2. 2.
             Pedestrian links between the Subarea and the CVG Trail should be established.
          3. 3.
             Internal non-motorized access should be improved.
          4. 4.
             Find more ways to utilize vast surface parking year-round (e.g., lease some CVG Trail users).
          5. 5.
             The 90-degree bend in Turfway Road should be removed for safety and capacity reasons.
    3. 3.
       Goal: Establish identity of the Subarea as a destination beyond horse racing.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Another attraction such as dining, sports mall, casino, live entertainment, or other outdoor recreational venues should be constructed.
          2. 2.
             An overall marketing theme for the Subarea should be developed.
          3. 3.
             The parking area landscaping should be installed and/or beautified.
          4. 4.
             The entries into the Subarea should be developed into “gateways”.
    4. 4.
       Goal: The land use recommendations for Subarea Six should be coordinated with an overall plan with development of Marydale (Subarea Seven).

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Work with Marydale ownership to maximize the use and development of both sites.
16. P.
    Subarea Seven - Marydale

    1. 1.
       Goal: The land use recommendations for Subarea Seven should be coordinated with an overall plan with development of Turfway Park (Subarea Six).

       1. a.
          ​​​​​​​Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Development of Subarea Seven should avoid a “piecemeal” approach and developing chunks as the market demands.
          2. 2.
             Development should be coordinated with development of adjacent properties, especially Turfway.
    2. 2.
       Goal: The history and heritage of Subarea Seven should be considered.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Consider maintaining elements of the Seminary and Retreat House in future development.
          2. 2.
             The local history of the Marydale Property should be recognized.
          3. 3.
             The on-site priests’ cemetery and other shrines associated with Marydale’s history should be protected.
    3. 3.
       Goal: Minimize environmental impact of development.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Encourage sustainable, environmentally responsible, and resource efficient development.
          2. 2.
             Be mindful of stormwater, and the presence of water bodies, such as Dry Creek.
          3. 3.
             The parking area landscaping should be improved and incorporate non-structural stormwater techniques.
          4. 4.
             The unique landscape and viewsheds should be maintained.
    4. 4.
       Goal: Transportation connections in the Subarea should be improved.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Establish safe pedestrian access to and from Turfway (Subarea Six), adjacent residential/schools, the CVG Trail, and businesses along Turfway.
          2. 2.
             The existing tree-lined drives should be preserved for non-motorized use.
          3. 3.
             An internal road network through the property should be developed and connect to adjoining properties.
17. Q.
    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Subarea Eight - Turfway Road/Donaldson Highway

    1. 1.
       Goal: Establish a defined northwest ‘entrance’ into the Houston – Donaldson Study Area.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Utilize the CVG Airplane Viewing Area as part of an ‘entrance’ feature.
          2. 2.
             Promote the CVG Airplane Viewing Area as a destination point.
          3. 3.
             Enhance landscaping at this entranceway into the Study Area.
    2. 2.
       Goal: Incorporate the proposed CVG Trail into the fabric of Subarea Eight.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Provide and properly identify parking opportunities for patrons of the CVG Trail as it develops.
          2. 2.
             Promote the existence of the CVG Trail with occasional small identification signs along the route where the trail runs parallel to developments or is visible from existing roadways in Subarea Eight.
          3. 3.
             Encourage future developments to connect to access points to the CVG Trail where possible.
          4. 4.
             Examine using underutilized parking lots in the area for CVG Trail patrons.
    3. 3.
       Goal: Ensure the wide mix of land uses exist without negatively impacting each other.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Preserve the residential nature of O’Hara Lane by preserving the existing land use buffer between the residences and the surrounding industrial and recreation uses.
    4. 4.
       Goal: Ensure that the transportation network adequately handles traffic in the area.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Examine the turning radiuses at both ends of O’Hara Rd and improve if necessary.
    5. 5.
       Goal: Development and redevelopment of Industrial land should be harmonious with surrounding land uses.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Use adequate buffering when industrial property develops and/or redevelops to protect residential uses from negative impacts.
    6. 6.
       Goal: Promote the historic elements in Subarea Eight.

       1. a.
          Objectives:

          1. 1.
             Identify the John Hunt Morgan Escape Route through the area.
          2. 2.
             Promote the Historic Marker that identifies the Center of the U.S. Population in 1880 located at the CVG Airplane Viewing Area.​​​​​​​

Effective on: 12/20/2022

1. A.
   Introduction

   1. 1.
      The Infrastructure Chapter reflects the status of the public facilities in the Study Area and, where it applies, makes recommendations for the future development of those facilities. Many of the strategies in this chapter are the result of suggestions from the consultants that were hired during the planning stages of the Houston – Donaldson Study to look at the traffic issues within the Study Area.
2. B.
   CVG Airport

   1. 1.
      CVG Master Plan

      1. a.
         The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that airports review and update their Master Plans every five years. CVG has recently had their Master Plan update approved by the FAA and it has an effect on the Houston – Donaldson Study Area.
      2. b.
         The updated CVG Master Plan focuses on recent changes in the airport’s air traffic. Although CVG still has more passenger travel and non-stop cities served than any other airport in the region, passenger traffic peaked in 2005 and has continued to decline ever since. According to OKI’s Freight Plan, passenger traffic has fallen from a peak of twenty-two million to only six million today. This drop in passenger traffic has been due to the fact that Delta Airlines, the main airline serving CVG, downsized its hub operations in 2005 and 2006.
      3. c.
         At the same time that passenger traffic was decreasing, CVG’s freight traffic began to increase thanks to DHL making CVG their main U.S. hub and one of only three global “super hubs” for DHL, along with similar hubs in Leipzig and Hong Kong. Since 2009, DHL has invested $105 million in its operation at CVG and has more than doubled its operational capacity. DHL employs approximately 2,000 people and plans to hire several hundred more once it completes another $47 million expansion in early 2013.
   2. 2.
      Air Cargo Park

      1. a.
         In 2011, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) adopted a regional freight plan. That plan recommended an air cargo facility to be built by CVG to enhance the airport’s cargo capabilities. The concept of such an air cargo park would be to provide logistical services that would be superior to those offered by a typical warehouse or distribution center. An air cargo park is envisioned to be an intermodal hub where air freight could be offloaded, sorted and/or stored for distribution by either truck or air.
      2. b.
         In making their recommendation for an air cargo park, OKI devised a list of potential infrastructure improvements. One of those potential improvements is a connector road from the cargo park to Aero Parkway (identified as “future South Airfield Road” in the plan). According to the CVG Master Plan, the cargo park is envisioned on the western side of the airport, meaning that the cargo park itself would not be in the Houston – Donaldson Study Area. However, the Master Plan agrees with the OKI regional freight plan in that the cargo park needs to tie into Aero Parkway, which would affect traffic in the Houston – Donaldson Study Area due to increased truck traffic making its way to I-75 from the airport. Such an air cargo park may be built within the ten-year planning horizon of the Houston – Donaldson Study as it is shown on the CVG Master Plan’s Proposed Projects and Timing Table with a 2023-2024 construction date.
3. C.
   Road Improvements

   1. 1.
      When the 1992 Houston – Donaldson Study was written, there were many needs that had to be met in the road system within the Study Area. At the time of this writing, most of those needs have been met. As an example, in 1992 Houston Road did not connect to Donaldson Highway. There are no longer identifiable major road projects such as that. As a result, the 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) does not list any projects within the Houston – Donaldson Study Area.
   2. 2.
      However, the 2014-2017 TIP is based on a larger document, the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. That document shows one project within the Houston – Donaldson Study Area. That is the widening of Donaldson Highway from the Kenton County line to Mineola Pike. That project is listed as a recommended project but has not yet been funded.
   3. 3.
      Boone County also has an adopted Transportation Plan. The Boone County Transportation Study was completed in 2006 and is a countywide transportation plan. Several things have happened at the local, state, and federal levels since the adoption of that study that make it imperative that it being updated as soon as funding is available, including the 2012 adoption of a new federal transportation bill, MAP-21. In addition, several of the projects listing in that study have been completed. However, there is one project that is listed on the Operation Improvement Plan Project list that is still recommended for future consideration. That is the widening of Turfway Road. This is a project that Planning Commission has proposed as part of the Houston – Donaldson Study and recommends that it be included in future transportation planning initiatives.
   4. 4.
      Beyond the major road improvements, there are several local road recommendations that the Houston – Donaldson Study makes. These local road improvements are largely based on the recommendations of the traffic consultant that the Planning Commission hired to look at the Houston – Donaldson Study Area early in the planning process. These local road improvements are detailed in the Land Use Recommendations chapter. This includes the proposed extension of Beam Boulevard and the intersection with Houston Road (Figure 17-6), the redesign of Turfway Road in Subarea Six to remove the ninety degree turn (Figure 17-10), and potential new local roads that would serve Subarea Seven when it develops.
4. D.
   Non-Motorized Facilities

   1. 1.
      There are two non-motorized infrastructure issues in the Houston – Donaldson Study Area. The first non-motorized issue is Phase II of the CVG Trail (Figure 17-12).

Figure 17-12
CVG Trail Phase II

4. 2. 2.
      As discussed in the Background Study for Subarea Eight, the CVG Trail is a planned 22-mile shared use path that is envisioned to encircle the CVG airport. The goal of the CVG Trail is to provide safe facilities for walkers, runners, and bicyclists around the airport. The trail has been championed since 2007 by a group called Friends of CVG Trail, a private not-for-profit community group.
   3. 3.
      The first leg of the CVG Trail, known as Phase I, was completed as a part of the construction of Aero Parkway and Ted Bushelman Boulevard in 2012. Phase II of the CVG Trail is planned to be located adjacent to Subarea Eight along its west boundary and within airport property. Phase II is planned to be approximately 3.3 miles length and is planned to extend north from the existing Phase I trail and connect to the CVG Airplane Viewing Area on Donaldson Highway.
   4. 4.
      The CVG Trail is only the first of the nonmotorized facility issues in the Houston – Donaldson Study Area. The second are the sidewalks. The Houston – Donaldson Study Area has an existing network of sidewalks that measures over 26.5 miles total in length. Thanks to this sidewalk system, even without the CVG Trail, the Houston – Donaldson Study Area has an impressive non-motorized system. However, the existing sidewalk network has gaps at certain points that should be filled in by making sidewalk connections. Making these sidewalk connections would involve filling these gaps, most of which are relatively minor (Figure 17-13). In addition, it is recommended that a non-motorized trail circle Subarea Seven. This proposed non-motorized facility should connect to the larger sidewalk system, as well as to the future Phase II of the CVG Trail.

Figure 17-13
Sidewalk Gaps In The Study Area

4. 5. 5.
      In addition to the sidewalk gaps, Figure 17-13 also shows a needed bike lane improvement. Houston Road has striped bike lanes for most of its distance. However, this bike lane disappears at the southern end of the road as it nears the intersection with KY 18. It is recommended that the bike lane be completed.
5. E.
   Stormwater

   1. 1.
      Nonpoint source runoff, commonly referred to as stormwater, has been identified as one of the leading causes of impairment to stream water quality throughout the state of Kentucky. Data collection and analysis in the Gunpowder Creek Watershed between 2009 and 2012 demonstrate the connection between land use development and stormwater. Increased development, as well as improperly managed impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, and rooftops, disrupts a watershed's hydrology, altering the natural flow regime which negatively impacts stream quality. Both stream system assessments and public education play important roles in stream quality as understanding existing conditions and promoting public stewardship are critical for protecting natural resources.
   2. 2.
      The Houston – Donaldson Study Area is divided into two different watersheds (Figure 17-14). The eastern side of the Study Area drains directly into the Ohio River via Dry Creek. The western side falls within the Gunpowder Creek watershed, which drains into the Ohio River in the southwestern part of Boone County.

Figure 17-14
Watersheds In The Study Area

5. 1. 1. a.
         Gunpowder Creek

         1. 1.
            At this time, the Boone County Conservation District is writing a Watershed Plan for the Gunpowder Creek watershed plan. This plan is based on two years of collected field data and subsequent analysis. Their data suggests that the water quality in the Gunpowder Creek watershed is graded a “C“.
         2. 2.
            The Gunpowder Creek watershed faces problems in the future that need to be evaluated and planned for today and has been under increasing pressure as development in the watershed continues to expand. Gunpowder Creek has been classified on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters for high levels of sediment, bacteria, and nutrients. Nonpoint source pollution, due to hydromodification, habitat alteration, and sedimentation, is thought to be the leading cause of impairments in the watershed. Historic land uses such as agriculture also impact the lower portions of the watershed. The Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG), most of which lies in the Gunpowder Creek watershed, has a separate Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for ethylene glycol. Most of the upper reaches of the watershed have been developed, including most of the land in the Houston – Donaldson Study Area.
         3. 3.
            Significant impairments have already been identified in the Upper Gunpowder Creek Watershed. CVG was identified as a major source of pollution from de-icing operations and has taken mitigating steps in accordance with the approved TMDL developed to address ethylene glycol (KDOW, 1998). Additional TMDLs are under development by KDOW for other pollutants they have assessed and listed as causes of impairments in the creek and its tributaries.
         4. 4.
            These are sedimentation/siltation, nutrient/ eutrophication biological indicators, organic enrichment (sewage) biological indicators, and fecal coliform (KDOW, 2008). These impairments are related to Boone County’s rapid growth over the past decade and an increase in storm water runoff. The county will likely continue to grow for the foreseeable future. As a result, the threat to the Gunpowder Creek watershed from nonpoint source pollution will continue to grow unless proper Best Management Practices (BMPs) are taken. Based on the evidence of this growing threat, it is important that a clearer understanding of the situation facing the watershed be obtained.
      2. b.
         Ohio River

         1. 1.
            The Gunpowder Creek watershed drains into the Ohio River, one of sixty-nine major tributaries in fifteen states. However, the water from the eastern half of the Houston – Donaldson Study Area drains directly into the Ohio River itself without flowing through a tributary. Much of this water is delivered via stormwater non-point source or through pipes that drain directly into the Ohio River.
         2. 2.
            According to the Kentucky Waterways Alliance, threats to the Ohio River mainly include stormwater runoff, agricultural runoff, mercury deposition from coal-fired plants, industrial wastewater discharges, and millions of gallons of untreated sewage that flow into the river each year from sewer overflows. Of these, the issues that the Houston – Donaldson Study Area most affects are stormwater and sewer overflows. Both of these issues surface during rainfall events.
6. F.
   TANK Transit Network

   1. 1.
      The Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK) has provided transit services to Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties as well as downtown Cincinnati since 1973. TANK offers a “Downtown Connection” taking people from their homes in Northern Kentucky to jobs downtown as well as service to work sites in the Northern Kentucky region, with fast “reverse-commute” bus service. TANK also operates express buses that travel the highway system, providing more direct access to the Downtown Cincinnati Central Business District. TANK operates 27 routes, through 19 Park & Ride locations, 365 days a year. TANK also operates the Regional Area Mobility Program (RAMP), a service for disabled citizens and the DayTripper program for seniors over age 60. In the 2009 Fiscal Year, TANK carried 3.7 million passengers to destinations throughout Northern Kentucky and downtown Cincinnati.
   2. 2.
      One of the routes TANK operates is the #1 Route. This is the route that travels to and from the Houston – Donaldson Study Area and is has more ridership than any other TANK bus route. The #1 Route travels from downtown Cincinnati down Dixie Highway and loops through the Mall Road area and the southern half of the Houston – Donaldson Study Area. At the time of this writing, TANK is proposing to change the #1 Route to a faster service by eliminating approximately three-quarters of the existing stops. This change is expected to result in a net increase in ridership and a higher frequency of busses, making it a more suitable route for commuters. The Houston – Donaldson Study Area would continue to be served by this new rapid bus system, although the number of stops would be reduced.
   3. 3.
      The Houston – Donaldson Study Area is also affected by the 2X Route, which is designed to deliver passengers to and from the CVG Airport. This route travels from Cincinnati to I-75 to I-275 and is the only route that has wifi for the riders. The route exits I-275 at the KY 212 interchange and loops through the airport, stopping at several places within. The route ultimately enters the Houston – Donaldson Study Area from the north at Turfway Road and Donaldson Highway after looping though the Circleport Business Park. The route then turns east from Turfway Road and travels along Donaldson Highway until stops again at Home at Commonwealth in Kenton County. As a result, although the 2X Route travels through the Houston – Donaldson Study Area and serves the CVG Airport, it does not directly serve the Study Area.
   4. 4.
      TANK also maintains two Park and Ride lots that serve the Houston – Donaldson Study Area. The first lot is in the parking lot of a restaurant at the southeast corner of Houston Road and Donaldson Highway and just inside the Boone County boundary line. The second lot is in the Turfway Park parking lot and located roughly behind the Target shopping center. Both of these Park and Ride lots serve the #1 Route.

Effective on: 12/20/2022

1. A.
   This section outlines the Site Design and Architectural Design Review requirements which apply to all buildings and sites in the Houston – Donaldson Study Area. These requirements are primarily aesthetic in nature and are intended to create and maintain substantive, high quality developments which are adaptable over time and conducive to a regional, automobile oriented multi-use activity center in accordance with the Study’s objectives. If the proposed improvements are not subject to public view from a public street or adjoining property, the Zoning Administrator may determine that the Design Review procedure is not required.
2. B.
   Compliance with the Site Design requirements shall be determined through the applicable Site Plan process as required by ARTICLE 30. Compliance with the Architectural Design Review requirements shall be determined through the Design Review process that is described later in this section. The Site Plan and Design Review applications shall be submitted concurrently. Seven (7) sets of full size architectural elevations, one (1) letter or legal size set of architectural elevations and color rendering, material samples or product literature, and sufficient design details which demonstrate compliance with these requirements shall be submitted as part of the Design Review application. Architectural plans shall be stamped or sealed by a registered architect licensed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
3. C.
   For additions or exterior modifications to existing buildings, the Architectural Design Review requirements shall be followed to the extent that they will produce a cohesive overall design in which the new improvements and original structure are compatible with one another when viewed from public vantage points. If compatibility between the new improvements and original structure is not feasible based on these requirements, retrofit design concepts prepared by KZF Design may be used. These design concepts are available at the Planning Commission office.
4. D.
   The requirements in this section supersede the normal requirements of the Boone County Zoning Regulations. When specific standards or requirements are not outlined in this document, the normal requirements of the zoning regulations shall apply. Exceptions or modifications to either the Site Design or Architectural Design Review requirements, and flexibility in development standards, may be granted by the Planning Commission through the Design Review procedure upon finding that the proposal will create an equivalent or superior solution to the requirement in question, or is necessary to better meet the recommendations, requirements, intent, goals, and objectives in the Study document as a whole, and the proposal does not diminish the design character which would otherwise be created by the normal requirement.
5. E.
   Site Design Requirements

   1. 1.
      Site Arrangement:

      1. a.
         Improvements shall be arranged on a site so that:

         1. 1.
            Large blank walls are not directly visible along street frontages or areas frequented by the public.
         2. 2.
            No more than 60 percent of the parking and vehicular areas for outlot type developments shall be placed in a front yard or corner side road.
         3. 3.
            A minimum 20 foot wide landscaped area is provided between the right-of-way and on-site improvements. For sites with multiple street frontages, the landscape area width may be reduced to 10 feet for secondary frontages along local or subcollector roadways. Such approval shall be granted through the Design Review process.
   2. 2.
      Landscape/Green Space Area:

      1. a.
         Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with ARTICLE 36 “Landscaping” of the zoning regulations. Additionally, a minimum of 22 percent of the overall site area shall be devoted to landscaping as permanent green space. The computation of this green space ratio can include areas such as landscaped parking lot islands and peninsulas, landscape areas along street frontages and building frontages, buffer yards, water features and sculptural elements, and storm management facilities which are integrally designed as part of the landscape. Storm water management facilities that are placed in front yards or corner side yards must be designed as an integral, visual part of the site’s landscape.
   3. 3.
      I-71/75 Streetscape:

      1. a.
         The pavement surface of any parking or vehicular area which adjoins the I71/75 right-of-way shall be at least 3 feet lower than the highest point in the adjoining right-of-way or on-site landscaped area adjoining the right-of-way; this shall be accomplished by either depressing the grade of the vehicular area or by constructing berming as part of the required landscaping. Any right-of-way fencing along the I-71/75 right-of-way shall be a white post and rail type fence.
   4. 4.
      Pedestrian Facilities:

      1. a.
         Each development or land use within the Study Area shall provide pedestrian sidewalk connections to other developments, recreation and public or civic facilities, and public open space areas, if appropriate. These connections are in addition to sidewalk connections between the building, parking, and street normally required by ARTICLE 33 of the zoning regulations. Comprehensive pathway/sidewalk systems which logically connect destinations shall be provided in multi-lot developments. Access easements shall be of a paved surface and shall not use gravel.
      2. b.
         Outdoor spaces with fixed seating, landscaping, and other pedestrian oriented improvements shall be provided at a main building entrance for multi-tenant and multi-building retail and office developments, and other major developments with a high volume of pedestrians such as public facilities. These outdoor spaces shall be surfaced with decorative pavers or concrete treated to appear as unit pavers. Crosswalks on public and private roadways within planned development should also have a tactile, decorative surface such as cast in place units made to look like unit pavers or concrete treated to appear as such.
   5. 5.
      Site Furniture:

      1. a.
         Site furniture includes items such as benches/seating and outdoor tables, light fixtures and masts, waste receptacles, bollards, railings around outdoor seating areas, and street/regulatory signage. There are no proprietary specifications or requirements for site furniture, or prototypes which must be followed. Rather, site furniture must be architectural grade and the various items selected for any given site must visually correlate to one another as components of an overall design system. Also, site furniture must use neutral or dark colors, and shall not use wood or wood products.
   6. 6.
      Underground Utilities:

      1. a.
         All utility lines shall be placed underground. Existing overhead utility lines shall be placed underground when a site develops or redevelops.
6. F.
   Design Review Process

   1. 1.
      Complete Design Review applications shall initially be reviewed by the Boone County Planning Commission’s staff, who will then report their findings and conclusions to the appropriate committee of the Planning Commission. The Committee shall evaluate the proposal and Staff input, and then formulate a recommendation on the application to the full Boone County Planning Commission. Upon consideration of the Committee’s recommendation, the full Planning Commission shall vote to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application at a regularly scheduled Business Meeting. The Planning Commission’s decision shall be based upon the requirements stated in this section, and any applicable conditions of approval from previous Zoning Map Amendment, Concept Development Plan, or Board of Adjustment applications for which compliance is to be determined through the Design Review process.
   2. 2.
      Complete Design Review applications must be received at least fourteen (14) days in advance of a Planning Commission Business Meeting in order to be considered at said meeting. Final action on Design Review applications shall occur within sixty (60) days of submission to the Planning Commission’s office. An approval of a Design Review application shall be valid for two (2) years.
7. G.
   Architectural Design Review Requirements

   1. 1.
      Previously Approved Design Standards:

      1. a.
         Sites which are subject to Design Review type standards, requirements or conditions from a prior zoning approval such as a Zoning Map Amendment, Concept Development Plan, or Board of Adjustment application shall be evaluated for compliance with said standards, requirements, or conditions.
   2. 2.
      Relationship to Neighboring Structures:

      1. a.
         Building design shall correlate to adjoining structures, and those in the same overall center or subdivision if applicable, through the use of comparable and compatible facade composition, materials, colors, roof forms, and stylistic or thematic traits.
   3. 3.
      Architectural Style:

      1. a.
         Developments with multiple uses, owners, and/or tenants are encouraged to use architectural designs from a single recognized academic style.
   4. 4.
      Massing and Proportions:

      1. a.
         The overall three dimensional envelope of the building shall be proportionate in terms of length, width, and height. Individual components on building facades, such as windows, doors, projections, placement of design details, and changes in footprint, rooflines and forms, materials, and colors, shall also be proportionate to one another and balanced on the overall structure. Three dimensional relief may be added with the provision of projections such as covered walkways/arcades, canopies, and simple fabric awnings, and/or by providing jogs or breaks in the building footprint.
      2. b.
         For large scale structures such as anchor style retail buildings, parking structures, and civic/institutional buildings, the amount of detailing and fenestration will need to be adjusted to match the scale and function of the building. The exterior walls of larger office/commercial buildings can be designed to appear as a collection of multiple zero lot line buildings or tenants.
   5. 5.
      Façade Composition and Detailing:

      1. a.
         Facades shall be designed to have a defined base, mid section, and top or cap. This can be accomplished by differentiating the material, finish, and/or color of the lower portion of the exterior wall along the foundation (or entire ground floor for multi-story buildings) from the upper portion of the wall. Additionally for multi-story buildings, a change in the fenestration pattern between the ground floor and the upper floors can be employed. The top or cap effect should be created through the provision of a three dimensional detail(s) which breaks or jogs the wall plane from the roof such as a defined cornice or projecting eave.
      2. b.
         Main public building entrances shall be emphasized in the facade design by methods such as recessing the entrance behind the exterior facade, providing an over-scaled entrance feature which projects outward from or above the exterior facade, placing the doorway within a three dimensional archway, providing an awning or roof awning/canopy, and/or by changing the building materials, detailing, or color around the entrance opening.
      3. c.
         Detailing should be used at the base, top of facades, openings, transitions, and across large wall expanses to reduce monotony and provide a finished appearance and dimension throughout. This could include: defined window sills and lintels, masonry quoins, soldier courses, herringbone or tile detailing, or medallions; recessing windows, storefront units, and/or doors within the façade to provide “punched” openings that create shadow lines and three-dimensional relief; metalwork, specialty glass, and signature light fixtures; and alternating materials, finish textures, colors, and/or size or shape of unit materials such as brick or stone on a facade. Corporate trademark features which uniquely identify one specific company shall not be used in the building design unless they meet the requirements of this chapter and can be readily removed or adapted without scarring the building for future occupants.
   6. 6.
      Building Materials:

      1. a.
         The primary exterior wall materials shall include brick, architectural grade CMU, stone, tile, or concrete which is formed to have a highly textured, fluted, or unit masonry appearance. These materials shall have an integral color. Architectural grade metals such as Alucobond type products are also permitted. Glass curtain walls used in conjunction with these materials are also permitted. Other materials such as EIFS/stucco, wood or cement board siding, glass block, and precast concrete may be used for trim, detailing, and incidental or secondary wall areas. EIFS/stucco and precast concrete wall panels with a similar light texture finish may be used as a primary building material for industrial buildings which are larger than 100,000 square feet and not located along collector or arterial roadways, and may be used on rear facades which are not subject to public view for other structures.
      2. b.
         Only architectural grade materials shall be used. Flimsy or synthetic appearing exterior wall materials, such as ribbed, industrial style metal siding, T-111, EIFS systems with visually pronounced joints (not including designed scoring or reveals), plain faced CMU, vinyl or aluminum siding, or hard board type materials are not permitted. Snap-in grids or applied mullions are not permitted in windows; only mullions which physically separate window glass into multiple panes shall be used for divided light type windows.
      3. c.
         Materials for any pitched roof shall be architectural grade, three dimensional shingles or tiles, slate, or standing seam metal. Other types of decorative metal roofing can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and approved if they are integral to the overall design of the structure.
   7. 7.
      Building Material Colors:

      1. a.
         Exterior walls shall primarily use colors which are reflective of rich, natural tones such as those in the red, red-brown/terra cotta, brown, clay, beige/tan/blond, mustard, and/or warm gray ranges. White or exceptionally dark colors are not permitted. Other colors may be used for trim and detailing. The color of pitched roof materials shall complement, yet contrast with the exterior wall materials. Color schemes shall use at least two colors to highlight building features and details, create contrast, and to avoid monotony and starkness in the overall building design. A consistent color scheme shall be provided on all facades so that the appearance of a rear or service side of the building is minimized.
   8. 8.
      Roof Types and Shapes:

      1. a.
         Parapet designs which have a defined cornice line and pitched roofs are permitted. Pitched roof forms shall appear complete and symmetrical when viewed from public vantage points both on and off the subject site. Mansard or other “stage set” type designs are not permitted.
   9. 9.
      Screening, Accessory Structures, and Retaining Walls:

      1. a.
         Mechanical Equipment Screening:

         1. 1.
            All mechanical equipment shall be screened. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened either with landscaping or enclosed with an enclosure structure which uses the same materials, colors, and design detailing as the principal building. If roof mounted, the equipment shall be screened by a parapet wall (for flat roofed buildings) which is designed and constructed as an integral part of the overall building; applied, “stage set” style mechanical equipment screens or mansards are not permitted. Roof mounted equipment on flat roofed buildings shall be painted to match the roof surface material if it is visible from adjoining sites or roadways that are at a higher elevation. For roof mounted equipment on pitched roofed buildings, the equipment shall be wholly contained within roof structure.
      2. b.
         Loading/Unloading/Service Areas:

         1. 1.
            Loading/unloading and/or service areas shall be placed in the side or rear yard only, excluding corner side yards. Any such area shall be enclosed with a screen wall which is at least 8 feet high and which uses the same materials, colors, and design detailing as the building which it serves. Alternatively, dense landscape hedging which will provide year round screening and that will grow to at least 8 feet high without routinely overtaking the planting space may be considered.
      3. c.
         Trash Enclosures and Accessory Structures:

         1. 1.
            Garbage storage areas and accessory structures shall be placed in the side or rear yard only, excluding corner side yards. Garbage storage areas shall be enclosed per the requirements of SECTION 3151 of the zoning regulations. Additionally, garbage enclosure structures and accessory structures shall be constructed with the same materials, colors, and design detailing as the principal building.
      4. d.
         Retaining Walls:

         1. 1.
            Retaining walls shall be constructed of brick, architectural grade CMU, concrete which is formed to have a unit masonry appearance, or segmental retaining wall blocks. The face material shall have a texture and integral color which correlates to the materials used for the principal building. Plain faced CMU and/or materials with a painted finish are not permitted.

Effective on: 12/20/2022