Shaka now now, shaka now now, shaka now now, shaka now now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now, shaka now Thank you. Of lovers in love. You know what I mean. Just the two of us. And nobody else in sight. There's nobody else. And I'm feeling good. Who's holding you tight. So listen very carefully. Closer now and you will see what I mean. It isn't a dream The only sound that you will hear Is when I whisper in your ear I love you Forever and ever There's a kind of push All over the world Tonight, all over the world But just like us, I'm falling in love La la la la la la la La la la la la la la la La la la la la la la la La la la la la So listen very carefully Closer now and you will see what I mean It isn't a dream The only sound that you will hear Is when I whisper in your ear I love you Forever and ever There's a kind of push All over the world Tonight All over the world We're just like us, the falling in love The falling in love The falling in love Aruba, Jamaica Ooh, I wanna take ya Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama Key Largo, Montego, baby why don't we go Jamaica, I'm the Florida Keys There's a place called Kokomo That's where you wanna go Take it away from it all Bodies in the sand Tropical dream melting in your hand We'll be falling in love To the rhythm of a steel drum band Down in Cocoa Aruba, Jamaica Ooh, I wanna take you through Bermuda, Bahama Come on, pretty mama Elago, Montego Baby, why don't we go We gotta go, go, go. We can play it fast and then we'll take it strong. That's where we wanna go. We gotta go, go, go. A Martinique, that Monterey mystique. And we'll go out to sea. And we'll perfect our chemistry. Bye. Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama, Key Largo, Montego, baby wild, we go down the cocoa, look at it faster, then we'll take it slow. Let's play where you were, though, way down in the cocoa, oh, Prince, I want to get your glimpse. Everybody knows A little place like Cocoa Moves Now if you wanna go And get away from the hall Go down to Cocoa Moves Aruba, Jamaica, ooh, I wanna take you to Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama, Key Largo, Montego, baby, why don't we go down to Cocoa? No, we'll get there fast and then we'll take it slow, that's where we were, no, way down to Cocoa. Aruba, Jamaica, ooh, I wanna take you to Bermuda. Bahama, come on, pretty mama. Key Largo, Contigo, baby. I'm the lock of the party, baby, since you said goodbye. Just ask old Joe, he knows I'm here every night. And that good old boy in the mirror looking round for you, it ain't me. And that's a honky-tonk truth. That's a honky-tonk truth. Cross my broken heart. I put my right hand here on the spear and swear on this bar. I ain't drinking, I ain't drinking, I ain't crying, I ain't moaning the blues. I wouldn't lie to you. Now that's a honky-tonk Don't think I'll come crawling back Cause I don't miss you If you walked up, puckered a girl I wouldn't bother to kiss you And that washed up, broke down fool Hanging out on that stool Well, it ain't me Now that's a honky-tonk through That's a honky-tonk through Across my broken heart I put my right hand here on this beer Square on this bar I ain't thinking, I ain't drinking I ain't crying, I ain't moanin' the blues I wouldn't lie to you Now that's a honky-tonk truth Oh, that's a honky-tonk truth Across my broken door I put my right hand here on the spear Square on this bar I ain't thinkin', I ain't drinkin' I ain't cryin', I ain't moanin' the blues I wouldn't lie to you Now that's a honky-tonk cruise I ain't thinking, I ain't drinking, I ain't crying, I ain't calling the blues I wouldn't lie to you Oh, that's a honky-tonk cruise Oh Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. I'm out. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. I will call this meeting to order. It is January 31, 2013. First on the agenda would be approval of minutes from the December 13, 2012 meeting. They were emailed to the Commission members. Any known changes, you can bring them forward at this time, if not already done so. Otherwise, I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, move approval to December 13, minute. We do have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval of minutes from December 13, 2012. So please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. We do have a few items. First, I'll ask for any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Yeah, please come forward. Yes, sir. Your name? Yes, my name is William Kevin Murphy, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm here on page 7 of the agenda under Commission Items, letter A, BOAR 2013-1, William Kevin Murphy. I have prepared a letter that I'm willing to submit to ask for a postponement of this item. I can read you the four-sentence letter if you'd like, or I could just... I think your asking is enough verbally. Do you have any ideas to the postponement date where you'd like to go? 30 days would be fine. 30 days, okay. All right, then. Mr. Salley, have you looked? I have, Mr. Chairman. Your meeting four weeks from today is on February 28th. Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak in regards to this postponement? Yes, sir. I'm Richard Murphy. I'm representing the property owner, David Jones, and he's not even here yet because I told him it was coming up later on the agenda. I did ask him yesterday in case this came up. He said he did not want a postponement. He's ready to go. He's got a neighbor coming here. Now, I don't know what Kevin Murphy's reasons are for the postponement, but I do know that my client, who's the property owner, who's already built this deck, wanted to go forward with it today. I do have, one month from now, I do have, I think, two zone changes on before you. I'd rather not have a third hearing. You'll get tired enough of hearing from me on the two cases that I have. So we're opposed to the postponement. At the very least, I would need to contact my client to see what his feelings are on that. Like I said, I told him I didn't think he needed to get here until 2.15 or so because it was so far down on the agenda here. Okay, thank you. Let me ask anyone else in the audience who wish to speak in regards to this postponement. Seeing none. And Mr. Murphy, could you give us a brief explanation as to the reasons for this postponement request? Yes, it's pretty much paraphrased in the letter that I submitted. Basically, I didn't receive a copy of the staff report on this case until yesterday. And upon reading that staff report, there were items of very important evidence that were cited as reasonings for disapproval recommendation by the staff. They are items that I was told in October when I submitted a written open records request from the Office of Historic Preservation, I was told those documents didn't exist. I just found out yesterday they did. And actually, if I am granted this postponement, it could ultimately result in me withdrawing this case after I'm able to review those documents with legal counsel, of course. But that's the reasoning. There are some very significant items like transcripts of minutes and landscape plans that I specifically asked for at the end of October. I have copies of those letters of request if you'd like to see them. I think probably not at this time. Let me ask staff reasons for the tardiness or lateness of this information coming out. We weren't aware of it until late last week on Friday that that had been made available. Amelia from Historic Preservation found a tape from the 2001 hearing that she didn't realize existed, and they didn't have any minutes of the meeting. And on the certificate of appropriateness that was issued in 2001, there were no conditions on there. And that was the information. The certificate of appropriateness was given to Mr. Murphy and that didn't have the condition listed. The tape was not made available and was not even found until late last week, like I said. I'm not sure exactly when she found it, but we weren't aware of it until Friday afternoon, late Friday afternoon. The staff report had already been basically completed until we found that information, and that's the snag that I referred to in the e-mail that I sent to everybody saying that it was not ready. But that's the reasoning for it, And I don't know that the information that would be in the recording would make any difference as far as this goes or not because of the reasonings that are in the staff report for the recommendation for disapproval. But that's up to Mr. Murphy to decide whether that would be the case or not. And those are the reasons. Okay. Okay. Mr. Murphy, I'm up hearing you correctly or presuming that you want time to review the minutes from or the audio tape. Well, yes, yes, sir. And not only the audio tape, but also the landscape plan that was not available in October that all of a sudden is available that was approved by the staff. I've never seen that. I would like the opportunity to request that and review it. Okay, thank you. Mr. Dick Murphy, do you have anything else to add at this moment? Of course, the appeal is from the 2012 action of the BOAR, not the 2001 action of the BOAR. If I could, could I have five minutes to call my client and maybe discuss this with Kevin Murphy and get back to you on it? Yes, sir. We'll do that. And in the meantime, we'll take care of a couple other agenda items, if you can sit tight. Okay. Hopefully the two will resolve this one way or another. In the meantime, we're going to move forward and go to the bottom of page one. Chairman Owens? Oh, I'm sorry. That's quite all right. It's messed over. That's quite all right. I think I heard rumors about this. Go ahead. Yes, sir, I think you may have. I'm here today for John Woodall. He's asked that on page 3 of your agenda, MAR 2013-1, Kirk and Carol Snyder, be postponed for one month to your February 28th agenda. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion from the Commission. Ms. Phillips? Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone MAR 2013-1 until the 28th of February. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. I'm sorry, that motion passes. Now, we'll move on down to the bottom of page one, Givens Investment Limited, MARV 2012-18. We do have a requested variance and also the ZDP, which follows on page three, 2012-109. There is a revision in which I believe you have in front of you on a tan sheet. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens. Members of the Commission, our first item is behind tab 1 in your notebooks today. And as Mr. Owens or Chairman Owens mentioned, page 1 on your agenda as well. This is a request by Givens Investments Limited to alter the zoning from an R2, which is our two-family residential zone, to the R4 zone for high-density apartment use. The subject property is located at a portion of 1577 Martha Court. And on our overhead, could you hear me? On our large sheet here, and it's the same on the overhead, Martha Court actually runs both north and south from Eastland Parkway, and Eastland Parkway intersects New Circle to the north of Winchester Road, that large interchange. So Eastland Parkway, Martha Court, and this property is at the terminus of Martha Court, and currently we do have a right-of-way that shows a cul-de-sac, but on our aerial you'll see the cul-de-sac was never constructed because it's on the Yates Elementary School property. So the subject property is bound to the north and northwest by R2 zoning for the Yates School as well as duplexes along Heisel Way. In addition, Martha Court and Mead Court are multifamily residential uses, and Cantrell Drive bounds it to the rear. Subject property to the rear is single-family residential. So this area is all residential in nature, just of varying densities and uses. There's the aerial photograph of the property. It's currently vacant and has always been vacant, and it was formerly part of the school property but was subdivided off several decades ago and just was never constructed on. There is an easement that crosses the property as well, and I believe that may be why part of it is split-zoned. You can see the yellow highlight of the property does not quite match the property lines in the area, and the portion of the property to the south, southeast, is R4 already, and the portion highlighted in the yellow is the part of the property that is currently R2. So it is a split-zoned parcel. This parcel is at the end of Martha Court where it curves into the Yates Elementary School. And there are several mature trees along this area, and they are also near the utility easement that crosses the property. You can see there are several other apartment buildings along Martha Court. And on this north side, excuse me, west side of Martha Court, there are multiple buildings that are part of the Northridge apartment complex. And the applicant is requesting an R4 zone in order to make an addition to that complex to add one more building, which would include 15 dwelling units. The comprehensive plan shows the subject property with a green space recommendation, or open space as well. Although that is currently on our comprehensive plan land use map, the staff does agree with the applicant in that they claim or contend that the R4 zoning they're proposing is more appropriate than the existing R2 zoning in this location. there were five reasons that the staff came to for this conclusion first the zoning on the subject property is split zoned between the R2 and the R4 zoning the property is the only R2 zone on Martha Court so while it could accommodate a duplex it would be out of character with the rest of the street secondly the R4 zoning is more compatible with the existing zoning on Martha Court and within the area along Meade Court as well. The area has been developed between Eastland Parkway and the school with all multifamily residential and R4 zoning. In addition, where the property sits next to the Yates Elementary School property, there's a detention and stormwater area, and the staff feels it's unlikely that that area would ever be brought in for development. so utilizing the property with the Northridge apartments is appropriate at that location. And then also the R4 zoning would allow for the Northridge apartments to expand and for this property to be integrated into a unified development plan. And then lastly, the applicant in their justification did identify that they would be using, or they do use this area, these apartments, for low-income housing as well as elderly housing. And the Comprehensive Plan does support both of those endeavors, both in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives as well as our 2012 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, specifically the staff report of the Staffwood site Goal 8 and Goal 13 of our 2007 goals and objectives. and theme A1C and A2A in our 2012 comprehensive plan, which support affordable and accessible housing to meet the needs of all citizens, including older and disadvantaged residents, and then also identifying areas for opportunities for infill and redevelopment that respect the context of the neighborhood. So staff's recommending approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this recommendation. Thank you, Tracy. Any questions? No? No. Thank you. I think we've got Ms. Gall coming up. Good afternoon. On the agenda, this plan is on page three, but if you'll look and you'll find a brown copy on your counter, This is Plan ZDP 2012-109 Eastland Park Unit L. This is a preliminary development plan to go along with the zone change. When this was first reviewed, the subdivision committee had recommended postponement because there were several conditions concerning as far as whether or not this property would be able to meet their parking. At that committee meeting, they brought us in some prints, which we hadn't had a chance to look at. After reviewing those prints, we were able to come up with revised conditions and be able to pick out some of the cleanup conditions to reduce that. So now we're down to 10 conditions. The first one with the zoning gets approved by the council. Then we have some sign-offs from our different governmental agencies. We have a note that says, to note that no building permits shall be issued until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Again, I said this is a preliminary plan, so this is just for their zoning. We need to have dimension parking depths, to note the height of the building, because that's part of the concern as to where it's located. Provide that the Planning Commission grants the request for a height-to-yard ratio, that will help with that height of the building. And clarify the elderly housing in each building units. They just have eight elderly, and so therefore we need to have it how many elderly units are available in each building. With that, if there's any other questions. Any questions? No? Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, I am going to address the variance request on this plan for you. As you can see from the layout of the development plan, here is Martha Court and Eastland Parkway. Here we have the existing buildings with the one-bedroom apartments and the associated parking. This is the area of the rezoning with the proposed new building, 15 bedrooms. 15 units here. The building proposed is 40 feet by 90 feet on this lot. Here's the zone line, the split zone that Ms. Wade referred to. And the reason for the variance request we have highlighted in purple for you, there is a 40-foot utility easement for a large KU transmission line that runs through this portion of the property. And it goes here to the property line on this lot. From this line over, you see this purple line, there is a 12-foot utility easement. If you were to meet the setback off the utility easement, which they cannot encroach, they have to do that, and then meet the 20-foot setback required in the group residential, and now that this is being incorporated, we have a group residential project, you would have to move this building 20 feet off this rear line. It would be approximately 28 feet in width or less, and they would lose their ability to add most of the units they would like to add here, and it would really impact the project and make it uneconomical. And again, this utility easement was established well back in the 60s or before when this property was originally planted. So that is not of their creation. It is something they just have to deal with, and for that reason, they have requested a variance. The report has been handed out to you. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions I outlined in that presentation and that they are impacted by that utility easement, and there should be no impact to public health and safety should you grant the variance on this property. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? No? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Applicant? Hi, I'm Chris Westover for the applicant. We agree with the staff report and recommendation and respectfully request your approval. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the Commission. We would need motions for the zone change request for the variance and for the ZDP. Mr. Berkley? I'll be glad to make a motion. Yes, sir. We'll do the MARV first. Mr. Chairman, I make recommendation of approval of MARV 2012-18. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made in second and for approval. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Mr. Berkowitz. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a recommendation of approval of ZDP 2012-109 with the 16 noted conditions. We've got revision 10 revised conditions there. Okay. Motion's been made for approval with revised conditions. Do we have a second? Yes. Ms. Mundy seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Do we want to continue on with just a show of hands? Or is it coming? Okay. We'll go to the old-fashioned version, please, with a show of hands. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? That motion passes. Mr. Berkley, do you wish to continue? Variance. Variance. Mr. Chairman, I make recommendation to approve the requested variance. I don't see the numbers. With four conditions. with the noted four conditions. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy again for approval of the variance. Are we working yet? Show of hands then. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, any opposed? That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Murphy, where are we? Mr. Murphy and I conferred out in the hall and did agree to a two-week postponement on this. I would note that Alan and Stella and Gorin did come during that break, as well as my client, David Jones. The Gorins are other adjacent neighbors to this who were here in support of Mr. Jones. I just want to note that for the record, but we agreed to a two-week postponement of this. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, you're... Okay. That would be until February 14th. Okay. All right. Let me ask anyone else in the audience who should speak in regards to this request for postponement. Seeing none, thank you, neighbors. I'll entertain a motion. Motion has been made for postponement and seconded by Ms. Plumlee for postponement until February 14th. That is for B.O.A.R. 2013-1. We're still not working, so a show of hands. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? That motion passes. Thank you, folks. We'll move, I believe, to the next one, which would be on page 4, Julie and Anthony Childress, zoning map amendment, and Julie and Anthony Childress property zoning development plan. That's MAR 2013-2 and the ZDP 2013-10. and we do have a revision which is on a tan sheet that should be in front of you as well. Good afternoon. Chairman Owens again. The next item is on page 4 of the agenda and can actually be found behind tab 5 in your notebooks. This is a request from Julie and Anthony Childress to rezone property located at 430 West Maxwell Street from our wholesale and warehouse business, B4 Zone, to the Lexington Center business, B2B Zone. The property is only a fraction of an acre, less than a tenth of an acre, and is located directly across from the High Street parking lot for Rupp Arena. This parcel is at the corner of Spring Street and West Maxwell Street on the southwest corner. The commission can see that there is already B2B zoning in this vicinity, including this block face. for 424 and 422 West Maxwell, as well as the parking lot across the street, and a recent zone change for the Pleasant Green Baptist Church just to the northwest of this location, about a block. The applicant is proposing to rezone at this location in order to mostly bring the property into some conformity with the B4 zone, The uses at the property have been nonconforming uses for really as long as the zoning has been in place. The first floor has been used for retail and the second floor for residential in the past. And they are proposing to use the whole building for residential at this point. That was their original proposal in the application. and then utilize the rear of the lot where the gray vehicle is parked to construct a garage with a second story for usable space above that, possibly for an office use. The 2007 comprehensive plan at this location might be a little bit hard to read, but the purple across the street is for the downtown master plan land use, but this subject property has a commercial residential mixed-use land use recommendation, and that carries forward from our Newtown Pike Extension corridor plan for this area. The mixed-use land use category is defined as a category that encourages combinations of office and neighborhood retail with residential above or adjacent to the office or retail use. The intent of the category is to encourage redevelopment by mixing uses and reducing parking requirements. And certainly the B2B zone does meet those criteria. The B2B zone actually has no parking requirements, but the applicant is proposing some parking on the property. Since the proposed B2B zone is one of several zoning categories that can implement this land use recommendation, The staff does recommend approval of the applicant's request because it is in agreement with our comprehensive plan. In addition, the B2B zone does permit the uses that the applicant is proposing. The staff also recommends conditional zoning restrictions at this location, specifically three uses that would be prohibited. This would be consistent with other zone changes in the area, specifically the three lots that are immediately adjoining that became B2B a few years ago. The restrictions proposed by the staff are to prohibit cocktail lounges and nightclubs, automobile service stations and or sale of gasoline, and then establishments for the display, rental, repair, or sale of automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, and boats. the reasoning behind those restrictions is to make it consistent with the other property in the area as well as compatible with other approved developments nearby in downtown. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this proposed zone change. Questions for Ms. White? Tracy, I'm curious about one thing. when you mentioned garage and possible office overhead, would the zone allow for a second residential unit there? It would. I didn't mention, but the zoning committee did recommend approval of this as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, it looks like Mr. Martin's feet. Is that correct? No. Ah, sorry. That's all right. I shouldn't guess. All right. The zoning development plan is at the top of page 5, ZDP 2013-10, the Julie and Anthony Childress property. As Tracy mentioned, it's located at 430 West Maxwell Street. This property, as she showed you, is at this intersection with Maxwell and Spring Street, two existing structures, the garage with the space above it. as well as the main building in this area. The subdivision committee recommended postponement at its last meeting, primarily related to an issue over a concern about the access to the garage and the backing out of cars on the Spring Street. This is where the opening to the doors are on the Spring. It's not really possible to get vehicles in this way, so the existing exit out on the Spring Street was of concern to traffic engineering, and its intensification. We did receive an email from Traffic Engineering that they had met with the applicant and had discussed some limitations to that access. There you see a revised set of conditions in front of you with a new condition number 11 to denote garage parking for the owner and resident only. The second sentence was part of something that Jeff was working to try to resolve as well, but I think the staff would ask that that last sentence be removed in order to give traffic engineering and the applicant a little more flexibility in case they come up with something better than what's mentioned in that last sentence and be handled under traffic engineering sign-off. But with those changes, the staff is recommending approval. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Questions? Chris, you're saying on number 11 to delete? The second sentence. The second warning device will be incorporated, et cetera. Yeah, I think traffic engineering and the applicant will work that out under traffic sign-off. Any idea what that might be? No. Our last communication with traffic engineering was this afternoon before the hearing, and he said he just didn't want to lock in in case there was something better that the applicant might have as a better solution. Okay. All right, then. Thank you. Any other questions for Chris? No. Applicant? Jim Black with J.E. Black representing the applicant. In reference to the traffic issue, I did meet with a representative of traffic engineering and within just a few minutes worked out what seemed to be a reasonable plan for the geometry. the face of the garage would be very close to the edge of the sidewalk, a foot maybe away. The things that I immediately proposed were that the garage doors had to go vertically as opposed to a swing-out door, which would swing out over the sidewalk. Secondly, to propose an audible sound that when the door goes up, kind of beeping occurs. I really don't think that mirrors would have any effect because if the people pull straight into the garage, the driver is going to be two-thirds into the garage and not able to see mirrors back here. So I think the vertical traveling doors and the audible sound are the most logical. And that's what I thought I had worked out with traffic two, three weeks ago. I just now found out that they want to possibly consider other things, but they had, in my mind, successfully approved the issues that I just mentioned to you. And if we can find something better, that's fine. Thank you, Mr. Black. Any questions for Mr. Black? Okay. Nope. Thank you. Do I see Mr. Neal back there? Mr. Neal, do you have anything to add at this point? personally it's more of a statement I guess I'm just curious as far as the audible beeping and what sort of possible nuisance that might be in the neighborhood at 2 o'clock in the morning when somebody came home the audible beeping is probably I came up with the mirror idea because we use that in other areas downtown for more commercial type garages I don't hear too many audible beeps out on the street So I think that's something we can work out. And with the other restriction for residents and owners that are only supposed to use this, they can't use it as a commercial garage or anything like that, we'll cut down on the frequency enough to where it should be fairly safe. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Thank you, Mr. Neal. I presume no one else in the audience wish to speak on this plan. More than welcome to if you want to. Thank you, Mr. Black. Any other questions from the Commission? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the Commission for their wishes. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Move approval of MAR 2013-2 for the findings of staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy for approval of MAR 2013-2. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of ZDP 2013-10, the revised staff recommendation, and number 11. Are you deleting part of that? Yes, sir. The second sentence? Yes, sir. Okay, so it will read the garage parking for owner residents only. Yes. Motion's been made for approval of ZDP 2013-10. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next, I believe, we'll move on to the two text amendments. starting on page 5, ZODA 2012-9, amendments to Article 1, 8, and 12 for modifications of the B-1 zone. Ms. White? Mr. Owens, members of the commission, this item is found behind tab 2 in your notebooks, and it has been something that's been around for quite a while, and I'm hoping we can move it forward today. The text amendment is 2012-9, an amendment to Articles 1, 8, and 12 for modifications to the neighborhood business zone, which is our B1 zone. The impetus for this text amendment came from the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Chapter. That chapter does indicate that there was really a two-step process, first completing a non-residential infill study, and then second to use that study to make some adjustments to our neighborhood business zone. and we have made basically based on that study as well as some input from the downtown development authority, the infill steering committee, and the division of building inspection and division of planning. We've made four types of changes to the text of the B1 zone in general. First, in terms of yard and height requirements. Second, off-street parking requirements. Third, the special provisions section of the ordinance. And then lastly, cover uses, both principal accessory and conditional uses. Currently, the height restrictions in our neighborhood business zone limit the height of a building to 25 feet unless it has a third or top floor with residential use, in which case it can extend an extra 10 feet to 35 feet. The yard restrictions are currently set at 20-foot minimum in the front yard. There are some provisions that in the IR area you match what's on either side of you, so it says unless in the IR area. but there are no restrictions for side and rear yards unless you're adjacent to a more restrictive zone. So we wanted to provide some examples here. In a typical urban B1, if it were surrounded on all three sides by a more restrictive R1C zone, then the B1 zone would have to adhere to an 8-foot side yard and a 10-foot rear yard requirement and have a minimum landscape buffer of 5 feet where residential and business are joining. In a rural B1 zone, if it were surrounded by the AR, you would be required to match, again, the more restrictive zone of AR and match their yard requirements, which would be 25 feet to the side and rear, and then also a landscape buffer of 15 feet. So those restrictions do exist today. The non-residential infill and redevelopment studies. Excuse me. This isn't being shown here in the folder, is it? As far as trying to follow? No. Yeah, okay. Sorry. All right. We've got to follow you. Yes. Okay. The non-residential infill and redevelopment study did make some general statements about encouraging higher allowances for height in terms of buildings, even nearby single-family residential areas. And also in terms of yard restrictions, the IR study promoted increasing site coverage, which would mean minimizing the yard requirements to the extent possible. Given that direction, the staff is suggesting two different types of changes here. One is creating a build-to range in the B1 zone so that the setback would be between 10 and 20 feet for all buildings. That would increase your buildable area to the rear and typically put parking to the side or rear of a building and push the building to the front of the lot. In addition, the staff also recommended increasing the height maximum to 35 feet across the board rather than the stepped-up process if you have residential on the property. And then no changes to the side, rear, yards, or open space or lot coverage, which currently are all open, no limitations. In terms of your notebook, that's part of the text that is labeled Article 8. And if you'd like pages for that, I can give those as we go along. Page 8-9. The off-street parking requirements are something that we do find in each zone for the uses that are typically first permitted in that zone. The infill study suggested a reevaluation of current parking requirements. When the staff did that, using the American Planning Association standards for parking, we found that most of our uses were very much in line with the parking standards that they recommended. With a few suggested changes, the staff felt that those would be very consistent. So one is a modification to the requirement for arcades. This is actually a reduction in parking for arcades if they have billiards or pool tables or anything else. Obviously, we don't have a whole lot of arcades, but we thought we might as well modify it to make it consistent or better. Animal grooming facilities and male service facilities would be new uses that are defined. So the staff wanted to propose parking restrictions for those or parking standards. And then the last one has to do with shoe repair shops are currently allowed, but the clothing alterations, tailoring service, and tattoo parlors, those uses would be coming in. So we group them with the shoe repair shops, which is one space for every 200 square feet. the special provisions section of the ordinance, of the zoning ordinance for Article 8-16 B1 zone starts on page 8-10 in the notebook. There were two major changes suggested by the non-residential infill redevelopment study that relate to this. The first has to do with the fact that many of our B1 areas have uses sometimes that are out of scale with the neighborhood. So there is a restriction currently that limits the structure size of a grocery store in a B1 zone. The staff felt it was important to adjust that a bit and make it apply to any structure, and that would address hopefully the scale issue that many of the IR suggestions about use were trying to get at. For instance, the IR study suggested deleting furniture stores, which are rather large. If we limit the size of all buildings, then typically a large furniture store that might be at a scale in a neighborhood wouldn't be permitted there. so one changes to limit the size to address all big boxes and B1 zones not just grocery stores and then the second change is to create form bait a form based type district in a B1 zone well the study actually suggested sub areas within the community but the downtown business and B1 zones are among the first to be considered appropriate for these form-based districts. I'm going to go forward again. So the staff drafted some language that would allow a form-based neighborhood business project, and this would be something that was rather flexible. It would give the commission more ability to be flexible in a B1 zone, and also the developer with that flexibility, and hopefully to bring those together and have a better project to meet the needs of the community. So the form-based neighborhood business project would be approved by the Planning Commission. It would have to be at least an acre in size, and the final development plan had to be approved prior to any building permit. And in this case, the lot, yard, and height setbacks would be maybe negotiable, is not the right word but be up for discussion based on the neighborhood setting and context so the this would require an area character and context study prepared either by an architect or an urban design professional and that would include documents about the architectural setting and character of the area they would need to demonstrate how their project would be incorporated into the neighborhood and part of that would be providing renderings or other graphic materials to the Commission for approval an example that the staff found in our community would be the Chevy Chase Plaza they actually used a different way to get to that end but it is something that respects the neighborhood character and is integrated into the existing fabrics of the neighborhood and doesn't meet your typical B1 setbacks and so forth. And then the last big changes to our B1 zone have to do with uses, principal, accessory, and conditional uses. And again, we had quite a bit of input on changing those. So the text amendment would add a few new uses, animal grooming facilities. It would make assisted living facilities principal instead of conditional. It would bring brew pubs into principal instead of conditional. Mail service facilities, like our FedEx Kinko stores, would become principal and defined. Clothing alterations and tailoring services would be principal. Tattoo parlors, which are currently principal, would be named specifically. and then the form-based neighborhood project would be a principal use as well. Changes for accessory uses, we would identify a sidewalk cafe as an accessory use, and then in addition, the retail sale of propane, which is occurring in B1 zones, so we just wanted to make it a listed use. Conditional uses, this would bring extended stay hotels in as a conditional use in our B1 zones. It would make some changes to parking lots. So parking lots that are just pavement would become conditional, and if a parking structure were to be built, there would be a line between whether it has a B1 use on the first floor. It would be principal. If it does not have 25% of the first floor dedicated to a B1 use, then it would be a conditional use. And then drive-through facilities, a change that the staff felt was important and would be more consistent in our ordinance, would be to allow drive-through facilities as an accessory use when the Planning Commission approves it on a development plan, but a conditional use when not approved by the Planning Commission. Currently, the P1 zone has a lot of drive-throughs for banks, and every time they have to go to the Board of Adjustment for approval of those. So this same scheme of, not scheme, but plan of having them be accessory when approved by the commission and conditional when not would come into play in our P1 zone as well. That's the drive-thrus. One of the deletions that we would be making would be deleting hospitals, and then the picture disappeared. But the other one would be the combination business office and residential project, which is how the Chevy Chase Plaza got approved. But it's a conditional use currently, and it's something that has not been used since and is rather restrictive. It actually requires you to have 20 acres of property in B1 zoning in order to develop it. It was probably the first mixed-use concept we had in our ordinance, and it's just been used once. Some of the other modifications would be the, I mentioned the parking structures and lots. Parking lots would not be permitted as a surface lot anymore unless it was approved by the board. And parking structures would only be permitted principally if they had some sort of other business use on the first floor. Indoor theaters, we'd be limiting the size of those to three screens or three stages. The drive-through I mentioned just a minute ago. And then for truck rentals, these are currently conditional or accessory uses. There's a restriction on the size of the axle that determines the difference. And to be honest, that's not very practical, so we would suggest making truck rentals all conditional. when associated, I think, with gas stations. And since changes in the B1 zone often trickle down into other zones, there are other changes that would need to be made throughout Article 8 to address or to be consistent with the B1 zone. So other changes would occur in the professional office zones, the downtown business zones, our shopping center zone, the highway service business, warehouse, and industrial zones. And then lastly, there's some new definitions suggested in Article 1 to be consistent as well with the Article 8 changes. So where we're adding a new use of animal grooming facilities, we wanted to define that for interpretation and enforcement. Same thing with mail service facilities, tattoo parlors, primary entrance. I think that's a hang around from something else. Cocktail lounges and nightclubs. And then lastly, our expansion area zoning categories have never been included in the definition of a business zone or a residential or an industrial zone. So this would add those into kind of our other standard zones. So the CC zone would be considered a business zone where the ordinance generically refers to a business zone. The CC zone would fall within that and similar for the other two. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I also have some tweaks to what... Did I hand out a pink sheet to everyone? We do have a pink sheet. You do? Okay. Well, I do. No, there's not one, so we do need pink sheets right now. Okay, so I'll address that. Since this was first drafted and brought to the Commission, I think we might have been about a year ago. There have been other text amendments that have taken place that also have a trickle-down effect. So one of those changes had to do with banquet facilities, and that's really out of focus. But the staff, after some consideration, found that one of the changes to the banquet facilities text was a little confusing still. It referred to soundproofing, but the beginning of that section identified or talked about outdoor live entertainment. So it seemed a little confusing why we would still have soundproofing required. But cocktail lounges and nightclubs are, I would say, mostly indoor activities. So we're there occurring. Then we still want to have soundproofing implemented if they're approved by the Board of Adjustment. But in terms of any outdoor live entertainment or dancing, we wanted to make it clear that the board could also impose any time restrictions related to those in order to minimize nuisances to the surrounding neighborhoods. That's one option in adding to the staff's proposed text. The second item would be the Zoning Committee did recommend approval of the text, but they also did in August of last year recommend a change at the request of Mr. Murphy, and that had to do with miniature golf courses. And if I give you this, I won't have it. So the zoning committee recommended keeping miniature golf courses as part of the B1 zone, where the staff had asked the Planning Commission previously to initiate text that removed it from B1 but put it into the B3 zone and then kept it in B6P. with the zoning committee recommending keeping miniature golfing in the B1. The staff did make some changes to the text that you see in your notebook, which includes keeping miniature golf courses. But Mr. Murphy pointed out today that, in fact, the zoning committee recommended deleting the word outdoor from the miniature golf course section so that they could have a mixed course where you started inside and then eventually went outside or you had nine holes inside and nine outside, something like that. So the text in your notebook does not delete the word outdoor, but the staff would suggest deleting outdoor per the zoning committee's recommendation last August. And as a follow-up to that, the third bullet at the end down here was to allow it as a principal use in the B3 zone. The B3 zone, that change was not made in the draft text or the text you're considering today, so the staff would ask the commission to possibly consider an alternative to, part of the B3 zone to include it really the entertainment and out indoor or outdoor recreation uses are pretty common in our B3 zone and currently miniature golf is not listed at all it could be an oversight or possibly just a text amendment in the past that didn't include it but on page 8-17 we would suggest adding it to the principal use list for indoor amusements and then it would probably be considered part as a conditional use for outdoor amusements. Number six under the B3 zone principal uses reads indoor amusements such as billiard or pool halls, indoor theaters, dancing halls, skating rinks, theaters, or bowling alleys. And the staff would suggest adding to that list miniature golf courses. I believe that's it. Thank you, Tracy. Questions for Ms. Wade? Yes, ma'am? Thank you, Tracy, for working so diligently on these. And we've been at it quite a while, but I'd like to pick at the carcass just a little bit more. Okay. If we could. B1 I think we had to go back not only with B1 but any zone and look at the intent and B1 is to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area so that being said I think there's probably some things in B1 that aren't exactly neighborhood that could be deleted let's say like number three, the research development and testing laboratories, our centers. And I still think we could leave out radio and TV studios. Even though there is one there now, it could become nonconforming. And I think we could delete business colleges, technical or trade schools, or institutions. I think I understand now that the footage is down to 40,000, not to exceed 60, so I think that's a good move. And also, I'm still not in favor of tattoo parlors, but we won't quibble. And in all of these, my concern all along has been with the outside the urban service area, because there are some V1s, some V3s. And so how do these really fall with those areas? And if you go down to E under 816, prohibited uses, and there are several, but the first is establishments primarily engaged in agriculture sales and services. And so if there's a B1 in the rural area, then they would be exempt from doing what they were out there in the country to do. That's one question. And then also prohibited in there would be greenhouses. So this would be outside the urban service area, N of B1 or B3. Greenhouses and nurseries and hatcheries would be prohibited. Those mostly are my concerns because I think that we have to address not only the area inside the urban services, but those few sites, whether we're talking about Tate's Creek and Spears or Old Richmond Road and Jack's Creek, what could happen to those sites? And do we treat them equally, and just how do we address those? Thank you much. Would you like me to address any of it? Sure. Okay. In terms of the uses, the staff went through recommendations from several bodies and felt that deleting the uses created many more nonconformities than was really desired by the staff. So we avoided deleting uses as much as we could in terms of our recommendations. The second thing I would say has to do with the B1 sites in the rural area. The staff has been working on a text amendment for recreational uses, and not just recreation really, but other uses in our ag zones. And I believe that text amendment will address some of your concerns. One, in terms of the B1 zone for the agricultural sales and the nurseries, I would say most often those sites might not be, in some cases, big enough to accommodate a nursery, possibly a greenhouse, but those are permitted uses in our ag zones as well. So they would be permitted on the adjacent parcel, too. And I'm not sure we want to introduce them into the urban B1 zones, which are almost 90% of our B1 versus 10 or 15 in the ag areas. Let me add as well, hearing Ms. Plumlee, my first response was agricultural sales and services, where she's concerned about. Seems to fit, but then listening and hearing your last statement, you know, we've got to consider in this situation the B-1 zones inside the urban service area and would agricultural sales fit there. this might be best considered when we did not consider agricultural sales per se or greenhouses when we talked about recreational activities. But I think it's something that could be addressed at that time because in some situations agricultural sales as far as value-added products and so forth will very much be addressed at that time. But, you know, I do tend to agree as far as research development and testing laboratories in the center, you know, taking a hard look at that. I do have a couple other statements, but I'll wait. Ms. Phillips? My question has to do with the form-based code, and I recognize that we've been talking about it, and now this is an opportunity to execute it. But with respect to the location of existing B1 zones inside the urban services area, I think that if we're imposing a form-based code on those existing sites, in the cases that I'm intimate with, the places that are currently zoned B1, we're going to be robbing those places of their inherent kind of character by forcing this form-based code on it. And I would suggest that maybe if we want to jump into a form-based code, maybe B1 isn't the right zone because it is intended for kind of a smaller scale neighborhood-based, block-based business. Maybe we should be looking at something that operates at a bigger scale like a B2B. But that's my first point. With respect to the permitted uses, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure that additional uses, brew pubs, is really appropriate out in the rural area, especially after having seen yesterday's newspaper headline about the numbers of jobs out there. If we suggested doing something equivalent, if we had a Toyota plant, allowing sort of these incremental land uses to encroach on Toyota's infrastructure, people would be very upset that we're trying to forsake the economic engine of the area. So I would want to take a really close look at what it is that we're doing, because of the compatibility associated with those urban and rural areas. I'm not so sure that I'm okay with imposing different setback requirements for the rural areas. Maybe that's just the way to resolve it. That's the existing ordinance is where there's a more restrictive zone adjacent that you match that. Right. I don't know if that, you know, trying to think it all through, I'm not sure that that's a good solution. But anyway, I just have some concerns. It seems like it's a really ambitious approach to solving a lot of issues within B1, and granted it has needed some attention. But form-based code, I think, is the biggest problem that I have with it, that I don't want us to rob the charm and the character that currently exists by forcing something that isn't organic. Okay. Mr. Berkley? I've got a question. Going back to this agricultural sales and services, I think you said that this is something that's being looked at for the AU. But in the instance where the tracks are already zone B1 in these rural areas, The AU changes would not apply. That would then force that property owner to ask for a zone change. There would be some expense involved in that. I don't think it would probably be a problem to get. I mean, every situation is going to be different. But am I correct in what I'm saying there? The agricultural zones are being reviewed for recreation uses, and in some cases, some of those ag uses being suggested, agricultural recreation uses, might encourage retail sales of some sort related to that new agricultural use. So whether it's ag tourism, selling pumpkins, I don't know if that would be restricted since food products are sold other places in B1 zones. It would be an interpretation, really, and perhaps some tweaking of that one line would be necessary. But at this point, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Would it not be more appropriate maybe to make it a conditional use? perhaps that's a good statement I still feel like and I don't want to say beast by any stretch but we've got two different situations as far as B1s you've got to be one in the urban within the urban service area and you've got to be one outside the urban service area and once again And when I think of, well, greenhouses, I don't know that a greenhouse would necessarily fit inside the urban surface area. It could. You've got one, Nick Lopez, one. Well, you could make the claim for it outside. Same thing with agricultural sales. It may not be appropriate inside, depending on the area. It's something that's going to have to be weighed and looked at. I think a recent example, probably of a greenhouse, is the AP area is going to have one, I believe, aren't they? The AP area? That's in a B1. It's actually a B4. Is that B4? Yeah. And I don't know that I'm – is that considered a greenhouse? I thought it was just a restaurant. I know they're going to be growing stuff. Whether it's a greenhouse or not, I don't know. Yeah. uh but but you know there there are considerations here um other questions comments thoughts mr cravens yeah the um form-based uh issue form-based neighborhood business project that i mean that's optional right if somebody could go back to the regular b1 and meet all that criteria or they could if they had a creative project they could do the form base correct with all this architectural data and then they'd have to get us to go for it here too yes and that would be the only way someone could exceed the 40 000 square foot restriction as well would be to do the form-based code so we've had discussions with kroger on euclid they're in a b1 zone they're in a position where they cannot expand, the only way to do so would be something like the form-based code project suggested here, or rezoning. Well, I think it's a good tool to use in the infill area, and it says one acre in size. I mean, sometimes it's hard to do some projects without some flexibility. I think that's a good item. Other questions? Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. I'm getting back to the B1 and the new ZODA, the recreational ZODA. I'm still concerned about the B1s in the area because the new ZODA will probably address A-R-A-U-A-N-A-B, and there's no B mentioned in all that. Well, I would say that the text has not been drafted. But I'm just guessing. We haven't even had a summary report from the Vice Mayor's office yet, so I don't want to get ahead of that. Yeah, I'm just asking how, well, I'll wait until it comes down to Pike. I would think from attending many of those meetings that first prohibited use might be a section that this text amendment would address. That would be my expectation as we sit here today. Bill, to clarify, when you say that it might be something that the text amendment will address, you were talking about the one coming down the road. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. And I think it will. Once again, I don't think we specifically considered that. However, we did consider, once again, value-added products. There's a wide range of stuff that was considered, and that's something that could definitely be addressed as we get to it. Other questions? A couple of questions from me, Tracy, I guess. You mentioned height. Currently, I think you said the current height is like 25 feet unless they can go to 35 feet with the third floor being residential. You're proposing to go to just 35 feet overall. Does that still have a stipulation that the third floor has got to be residential? No. No. So you lose the residential aspect on that. It could still be there, but it's not mandated. Again, it gives the flexibility for development to have 35 feet, which in some cases, if it's a business use, would be two stories. Also, much in the same vein, did I see as far as a deletion where you're deleting business office and residential? Projects. Projects. As a conditional use? Yes. And that would be if we add the form-based project, would be deleting the other one. So it's conditional use number seven currently, and it's about a page long. So it's called the Combination Business Office Residential Project, and it has almost 20 restrictions associated with it. So the form base would be replacing that, and the possibility is still there? For a mixture as far as? Right. Okay. All right, then. And just one other comment, I guess, right now. You were talking, or I saw something as far as parking, and I'm not sure exactly where it was. One space for every 200 feet with a minimum of three spaces. does that mean if it's only 500 square feet they still have to have a minimum of three spaces? Yes. Okay. I don't know if this is the time or not or the place, but considering the pervious surfaces that we're going to and so forth, and I mentioned this before, I believe, I would dearly love to see getting away from some of the minimum requirements at times. In a situation like that, making them have three spaces, if they only want two, I don't have a problem with that. But that's more of a comment than anything. So other questions, comments, thoughts from anyone? If not, what are the wishes of the commission? I'll entertain a motion for... We do have a few people here to comment. Oh, I'm sorry. I've got a bad Mr. Murphy again. Patiently sitting back there. I'm still on my mission to make the world safe for miniature golf. Thank you. So thank you for letting me speak. Indoor or outdoor, it sounds like. That's right. Just wanted to take a minute. But just going over this last night, as notices on the agenda, I'd been to the zoning committee back on August 2nd on behalf of Collins Bowling Center, and as you all know, they had gotten a plan approved a couple years ago to try to do a miniature golf facility in conjunction with it. They're in the B-1 zone. And the report they were basing this on was first recommending removing miniature golf from B-1. and discussed it with the committee. The committee decided to put it back in the B1 zone and to remove the word outdoor as a limitation because some of these would be partly indoor, partly outdoor. Part of the problem with miniature golf is the seasonal nature, and if they could have part of it indoor, that would help with the viability of the use. So the zoning committee had taken off the word outdoor and put miniature golf as a principal use. And just noting this last night, I noticed miniature golf was back as a principal use, which is great, but the word outdoor was back in there. I talked to the staff. It was just an oversight that the word outdoor needs to come out according to the Zoning Committee action of August 2nd. So I'm looking at what I've got is this schedule of zones on page 8-5 on 27. it's number 27 would be miniature golf or putting courses as a principal use and deleting the word outdoor. I think the staff was agreeable with that. Ms. Wade is nodding her head yes. And so I just wanted to make note of that for you all. And hopefully you all will take the word outdoor out. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Anyone else wish to speak in regards to this text amendment? Okay. So, Tracy, if I may, one more question. You mentioned as far as deleting some of these and creating nonconforming situations. Do we have any idea number-wise what we're talking about? I'm pretty sure that the television station down there in Chevy Chase would be, you know, What about research development laboratories? Have we looked into that? I have not looked into that specifically, nor have I looked into business colleges, technical, trade schools. I know there's probably a handful of those that are in B1 zones. Okay. But I'm not sure about the testing research development center. It seems like an office use. Okay. Okay, thank you. So back to the Commission's wishes on letting this go forward at this time, or does it still need tweaking? More to the Commission's wishes here. Yes, ma'am? I would like to tweak it just a little bit more. Okay. So that's one statement or comment. Are there other statements or comments, or do we want to go with the motion? Ms. Blanton, it looked like you wanted to talk. Yeah, I'm ready to vote with just a couple of changes that the staff has recommended, including the miniature golf. if everyone feels comfortable that some of the ag issues will be resolved in this next iteration of things. To make a reply on that, I think so, yes. Coming down the road, I think it will. And I'm not going to say that's going to happen. Chris could give us his opinion, but it's going to be four to six months down the road, I would say. I think that's a reasonable assumption because we do have to wait for the final report from the committee. Then there will be some time while the staff translate the great work that that committee did into a specific text. And then there will be discussion and tweaking of that before it actually comes to a public hearing, I think. Mr. Berkeley? With that said, with the time lapse, would anybody have a problem moving the item one, prohibited uses, to conditional uses right now, to a conditional use, so that if something does come up, we could at least consider it? Or do you think it's necessary? At this time, Mr. Berkley, I would say probably since we're talking about urban and rural, I'd probably say let's leave it as it is. And I think it can be addressed. It wasn't specifically on the agenda when it comes to recreation, but I think it can be addressed as we move forward with that. Would that be a reasonable assumption, Mr. King? Yeah. Okay. If that's all right, do you? So, anything else? Okay. Yes, ma'am? I'm ready for a motion. All right, Mr. Chairman. I want to move approval of the GLTA 2012-9, and with some of these staff corrections as noted by Mr. Murphy and others, so move. So moved. Okay. Okay. That would principally be in regards to leading the word outdoor and leaving it as miniature golf courses, I believe, is what you're referring to. Precisely. Precisely, he said. There's some other things. Pink sheets. Pink sheets. The pink sheet and then making miniature golf courses principal in B3. Okay, the pink sheet, adopted changes for banquet facilities and removing outdoor from miniature golf. B3 principal. Okay. Miniature golf courses are not specifically listed in our B3 zone, but that's where almost every indoor-outdoor entertainment and amusement-type thing is permitted. All right. Staff would feel it's appropriate there. I'll accept that. Okay. Motion's been made for approval of ZOTA 2012-4. Do we have a second? And seconded by Ms. Cravens. I'm sure Ms. Cravens understands all the additions to that and is in agreement to it since she was helping. Any further discussion on motion? Did I say Ms. Blaine? Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry. Ms. Phillips? I'm still not sure about the form-based code. I'm not sure that the B1 is the place to put it. So I don't think that it's ready to go forward just yet. So that's how I'm going to vote. Okay. We do have a motion on the floor. It has been seconded, so we'll continue on with that. And I think we're ready for a vote. So what? Yes, sir? This form-based code, have we seen that? I mean, has it been in this the whole time? It has. But we haven't talked about it, or we have? I mean, I don't remember seeing it in the committee. Did we, Lynn? We had a work session presentation on that last year. I mean, I support that. I think it's a good one. Well, I do, too. I'm just not sure that B1 is the right district to put it in. And the downtown zones are actually in the process of developing guidelines, and it's a bit more formalized, I think, in terms of the task force that's been established for the downtown area to propose form-based code for that. They've been working for two years. And to clarify, they have decided not to go with a form-based code, but rather with a design excellence program that would involve architectural guidelines. Is that? And that's the direction they are pursuing. Is that restricted to a particular district, Chris? We're talking about all the three downtown zones. Which would be B2A and B2B as the Phase 1. Okay. I'll call for a vote at this time. So the motion has been made and seconded for approval. So please vote when it comes up on the screen. One, two, three. I'm counting five to three. If everyone's voted, the motion passes. Thank you. We have one other text amendment, which is on the next page. Thank you. It's on page 6, ZODA 2012-15, Parking, Private Walkways, and Paved Areas in a Residential Zone. Tab 3. Tab 3 in your folder. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. This item is on page 6 and 7 of your agenda. This is ZOTA 2012-15. text amendments regarding parking, private walkways, and paved areas in residential zones. This is a text amendment that was initiated by the Planning Commission, and it does involve several articles of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Emmons has done a lot of work on this. I think he's made at least one presentation to the Commission at a work session. Unfortunately, he's under the weather today, but it's my pleasure to present this report to you, which encompasses a lot of his work. the very last item on tab 4 pardon me get the right one here tab 4 of your notebook is the text that was recommended for approval by your zoning committee and we prepared a powerpoint that incorporates some of the photos that we've shown you previously with the proposed text and I hope I can zip through this fairly quickly some of the issues that the staff has been dealing with over the last few months involve the proximity of walkways and driveways in our residential areas and the main concern is that they allow for the opportunity for vehicles to use those areas for parking in this first example you can see obviously a case of that the first section again this will kind of jump around through the text that you're at but the first addition would be to this section of the ordinance where walkways between the sidewalk and the curb would need encroachment permits this is already the case for driveway aprons and it would prevent that incentive for a vehicle to come up over the curb into a front yard just like the photo we just saw. That would be a new section of the ordinance. This is actually that site there, and there was no walkway on the plan. That is another section of the ordinance I'll get to in just a moment. Paved area would have a new definition under this section to include permeable pavers or other hard surface material, including the gravel, that with the plans that were submitted for this particular property were not shown on the plans. And again, part of the permitting will address that as well in the future. Another definition would define a walkway for that used by pedestrians outside the public right-of-way. These would be two new definitions added to the zoning ordinance. yet in another example very wide driveway allowing three vehicles to park where there was designed a single garage as a result a tweak to our definition of driveway is proposed as part of this text amendment and that would be that outside of the infill and redevelopment area 24 feet would be allowable for a driveway to account basically for a two car garage door inside the IRA, it would remain at the 10 feet that it has been and still is under the current ordinance. That area right there might have been initially requested to be a front patio or a walkway right adjacent to the driveway. And so this is one of the main sections of this text amendment where private walkways shall be designed in a way where a vehicle cannot drive on it and to allow that area to be used as a parking space. This is the section that we'll follow in many of the other photos to show you how this text amendment is trying to be addressed. This example involves a kind of circuitous driveway that exists in this location, And there is another tweak to another section of the ordinance proposed to address that situation. Where single-family homes and duplexes are, the current ordinance in most of our zones, R1 and R2 zones, has this same restriction in it. This is being added to the R3 and R4 zones under this text amendment to have the same front setback of 6 feet and then the side setback of 2 feet. This is where the parking already exists on the lot and additional parking is proposed. This is not the situation where the driveway itself serves as the one required off-street parking space for the property. This is for additional parking. Same property. Another issue is where there is stone or non-traditional material where vehicles are parking. and another new section of the ordinance designed to address that. That is, where there is this type of material and where it's being driven on, it's to be considered loose aggregate and prohibited under the ordinance. Loose aggregate and gravel is already prohibited in these same sections of the ordinance. This is a clarification that it's not to be used as a walkway and also for vehicular parking. this example is regarding the front yard of these properties where there are front porches and then patios that have been constructed in front of those and a new clarification to an existing section where if they're within the required front or side street side yard those private walkways need to be restricted to 10 percent of those yards And by doing that, you would prevent this situation here where basically a vehicle can perpendicular park in those front yard areas without the benefit of much landscaping or anything. Yet another example here of parking area, the drive area to that duplex. This is the plan that was submitted for that, showing a loop drive with three parking spaces. And the property later then filled in that area with a walkway. yet another new section being requested for the ordinance where a private walkway needs to be designed where a vehicle cannot drive on it or be used as a vehicular use area that addition would prevent that situation in the future up to now permits have not been required for these and as a result you get kind of these graveled areas and areas kind of added over time incrementally, where this car is parked in the gravel area you see just in front of it there on the corner. So yet another tweak to an existing condition in the ordinance where permits are going to be required for these walkways and that they'll not be issued until they meet the design requirements of these different divisions of the government, also allowing for some review for storm drainage requirements in these areas as well. A few examples of things that would be affected by this ordinance. This particular walkway does have a separation from the driveway, but it probably would not meet the new standard where it has to be designed in a way where a vehicle couldn't park on it. If this driveway were in the infill area, it would be subject to the 10-foot limit. if it were outside the infill area, it would have to meet the 24-foot limit. I'm not sure where exactly this dwelling is located. Yet another example, again, I'm not sure if this is within the infill area or outside, but we included this one to show that the paved area here right in front of the door probably would not be able to be expanded under this text amendment. The reason being, if it got much larger than you see right here, it would be sized to where another vehicle could park on it. Again, in the infill area, that driveway would be limited to 10 feet, and in the remainder of the community would have a 24-foot limitation, 24-foot width. So that might actually be the determining factor should this owner ever want to expand that driveway. Here's another example. I believe this one is in the infill area. that brick area would be subject to the 10-foot restriction. It could be there, but it would have to count to the maximum driveway width in this particular area. This design would probably suffice as it is more of a shared driveway and pedestrian way to the sidewalk. So this is probably an example of a design that would be acceptable under the new text amendment. Again, the 24-foot versus 10-foot dimension would be applicable whether this home is within or not within the infill and redevelopment area. Yet another example of a design that would not be permitted under the text amendment. The spacing between that sidewalk and the driveway that's right next to it is just too narrow. That would not be permitted any longer. This is an example where it probably would. That spacing is such where a car would have a very difficult time getting one wheel on the sidewalk and the other on the driveway. That is probably the minimum dimension that would meet these new requirements. There is a new section proposed for nonconformities. I thought there was a photo ahead of that, but it may be afterwards. There may have been a deletion. Some areas do not have off-street parking for residences. And where that is the case in the infill and redevelopment area, and the council has established either a permit parking program for that neighborhood or perhaps one of the new pedestrian-oriented districts, there would not be a requirement for off-street parking in that particular area. That would be in addition to the ordinance. There are two other changes to this Article 4-8, which is a new section, and they are relocations of language that exists in Article 16-4 about nonconforming parking. They'd basically be moved to Article 4-8, and that's 16-4-D-1 and 16-4-D-2. This section, I apologize, we had a few deletions of photographs. This is one for areas outside the infill and redevelopment area. We had a corner lot photo to show you here where on the front yard of the house was a very typical grass area. He turned the corner and the side of the house was almost entirely paved with access to the side street side yard. This tweak, again to another existing section, is such that outside of the defined infill and redevelopment area, the driveway widths shall not exceed 50% of the requirement. In addition, another 10% is allowable for the sidewalk for the pedestrian to travel from the sidewalk to the front of the house. these proposed changes basically are the sections that will address some of the parking problems that we brought to you at your work session last fall i have mentioned the other two changes in moving the requirements from 16.4 into a new section 4-8 where all of our non-conforming parking issues would be lumped in one location Your zoning committee has recommended the draft that is in your notebook earlier this month, dated January 10th. And the staff in our report have given two reasons to recommend approval of the staff alternative text. The first is that the proposed text will enhance zoning compliance and enforcement by clarifying parking regulations. And secondly, adoption of the staff alternative text will further clarify certain design standards related to parking for one- and two-family homes and hopefully reduce the potential for zoning violations. I thank you for your kind attention. I hope that the staff has accomplished what we set out to do and your direction that you gave us upon reviewing this last fall. But I'd be glad to answer any questions before you hear from audience members. Mr. Salley, let me ask you, I think you just answered and referred to it. In the notebook, there's three pages as far as the staff alternative text that's dated January 10, 2013. Yes, sir. That's what we're considering for the two reasons you mentioned. Yes, we left the other one in that was the original version, but yes, the one from the 10th is the one we're asking you to review today. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Salley? Yes, sir. So this 10-foot driveway width, if you have a two-car garage facing the street, that doesn't apply there. In the infill and redevelopment area, it is a restriction. In most of the infill and redevelopment neighborhoods, garages are detached and in the rear yard. And then once the driveway goes beyond the house, it can flare out. There's no zoning prohibition against that. I'll just say somebody went in there and did an infill project and they had two car garages. Yes, let me show one of the photos. I think I can answer your question with this. This is a driveway that in the infill and redevelopment area would need a variance. And that is because it's wider than 10 feet. Of course, this has a two-car garage facing the front. Outside of the infill and redevelopment area, there would be no zoning prohibition against this type of development. Okay, and so if you had a three-car garage outside the area? You'd have a limit of a 24-foot drive way up until you got to the garage, which behind the building line could then expand out. But I see new houses that have three-car garages that are 30 feet wide. That's okay? If the garage is, let's say, around the corner on the side. It's right on the front of the house. If it's in the front of the house, the driveway today would even be limited to 20 feet. This text amendment would take that to 24 feet. So how are they allowed to do a three-car wide driveway? It would need a variance at the Board of Adjustments. Go to the Board of Adjustments and get the variance. Yes, to have one wider than 24 feet. Other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Salley, others in the audience that would like to speak in regards to this? No? Seeing none. Okay. Any further questions? If not, we can move on. I'll entertain a motion. This would be for ZOTA 2012-15 with the staff's alternative text that's dated January 10, 2013. Yes, ma'am. Madam, Mr. Chair, I move approval of ZODA 2012-15 with staff additions. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval. Do I have a second? And seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. I believe that is all of our agenda items. I do want to take note that, one, mistakenly referred to Ms. Blanton as Mrs. Craven some moment ago. A major mistake on my part. I would like to also take note that Della Horton today, I believe, is her last day. She is retiring, and from my understanding, tomorrow we'll be headed to Florida. So we obviously want to wish her the best, and I'm sure she will acknowledge the fact that at a lower reception yesterday, we saw some talent by some of the other staff members that I'm sure was not known before. But we'd like to wish Della Horton all the best. anything else Mr. King so with that I'll ask for a motion for adjournment second all those in favor please say aye thank you meeting is adjourned