But goodies Cause the good old days weren't always good And tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems Learned stickball as a formal education Lost a lot of fights but it taught me how to lose a case I heard about sex but not enough I found you could dance and still look tough anyway Oh yes I did I found that a man ain't just being macho Ain't an awful lot of late night driving food Drank a lot of take home pay I thought I was the Duke of birth When I made it with a redhead girl in the Chevrolet Oh yeah We were keeping the faith Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah From the faith Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh You know the good old days weren't always good Tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems I told you my reasons for the whole revival Now I'm going outside to have an ice cold beer in the shade Oh, I'm gonna listen to my 45s Ain't it wonderful to be alive When the rock and rock plays Yeah When the memory stays Yeah I'm keeping the faith Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Keeping the faith I'm keeping the faith Yes, I am You know I'm keeping the faith Yes, I am You know I'm keeping the faith Oh, you know I am I'm keeping the faith Oh, yes I'm keeping the faith We'll be right back. ABC All the stuff about me, take a ride and whisper, take a group. All the branches on the learning tree. But listen with all the roots of learning, let me tell you, girl. The education ain't complete. T-T-T-T, just gonna show you. Show you, show you. How to get an A. How to get an A. How to get an A. How to get an A. How to get an A. How to get an A. Listen to me, baby, that's all you gotta do. Oh, ABC, it's easy as one, two, three. All the same for the story. You and me, A, B, C, 1, 2, 3, baby, you and me, girl. You and me, A, B, C, 1, 2, 3, baby, you and me, girl. Sing a simple melody That's how easy love can be Sing a simple liberty One, two, three, you and me Sit down, girl! I think I love you! No! Get up, girl! Show me what you can do. Shake it, shake it, baby. Come on now. Shake it, shake it, baby. Ooh, ooh, shake it, shake it, baby. Hey! One, two, three, baby. Ooh, ooh, baby. See it, baby. Night, night, do it, baby. Now, that's how we love can be. Baby, see it, baby. It's like, one, two, three, baby. Baby, sing it, sing it, sing it, sing it, sing it, sing it, sing it, sing it, sing it, sing it. Thank you. I got to say it and it's hard for me. You got me crying like I thought I would never be. Love is deletive, but you let me down. How can I love you when you ain't around? And I'll get to the morning and you never call. Love should be everything or not at all. And it don't matter whatever you do I'm made alive out of loving you Only to find any dream that I follow is dying I'm crying in the rain I took this edge in the world for love everlasting Feeling your pain When will we meet again? Why do you have to be a heartbreaker? Is it a lesson that I've never been? Gotta get out of the smell that I'm under My love for you Why do you have to be a heartbreaker When I was being what you want me to be Suddenly everything I ever wanted Has passed me by This world may end Not you and I My love is stronger than the universe My soul is crying for you And that can not be reimbursed You made the rules and you could not see You made a lie thought of hurting me Oh, my God, I am held on the power of you, Lord. Tell me, which do we try? Why should we say goodbye? Why do you have to be a heartbreaker when I was being what you want me to be? Certainly everything I ever wanted Has passed me by Why do you have to be a heartbreaker? Is it a lesson there ever knew? Say that everything I ever wanted I'd love for you Why do you have to be a heartbreaker? When I was me and what you want me to be You say that everything I ever wanted has had me by. Yeah, I feel why do you have to be a heartbreaker. He was a heart-headed man He was brutally handsome And she was terminally pretty She held him up And he held up for ransom. What a cold, cold city. He had a nasty reputation as a cruel dude. They said he was ruthless. Said he was cruel. They had one thing in common. They were good and bad, she's safe. Faster, faster. The lights are turning red. Life in the fast lane. Show it makes you lose your mind. Life in the fast lane I quit so far Even for action Hot for the game The calling attraction The drop of a name They knew all the right people They took all the right pills They threw outrageous parties They paid heavily bills There were lines on the mirror, lines on her face. She pretended not to notice. She was caught up in the race. Out every evening, until it was light. He was too tired to make it. She was too tired to fight her fight. Life in the fast lane. Surely make you lose your mind. Life in the fast lane. Life in the fast lane. Everything all done I've been fast lane We'll be right back. I think I'm gonna crash Thank you. Motion passes. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Seeing none, we'll move on. I'll ask Mr. Saleh to sound the agenda. to see if we have any abbreviated hearings. Mr. Chairman, I believe everyone in the audience today is here for one of the applications. We will ask if anyone is here to speak to or to object to any of the zone changes. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, I think we can take them all in the order that they appear on your agenda. Okay. Thank you. As abbreviated. I will mention the first one will be at the bottom of page one, Little Beginners Child Development Center, a zoning map amendment, and Little Beginners Child Development Center, FKA Grace Apostle Church Zoning Development Plan. It's MARC 2014-9. There is a zone change request along with a conditional use request and the zoning development plan. I will remind everyone, if you haven't heard, Council does have a meeting that's scheduled in here for 3 or 3.30, so I don't think we'll have a problem today, but just to make everyone aware of it. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. As you said, our first item is MARC 2014-9, Little Beginner's Child Development Center. The requested rezoning is from a single-family residential zone, R1B zone, to a planned neighborhood residential zone, which is our R3 zone. Yes, I did turn it on. The subject property is you go to that second slide. Is it working now? Thank you. Subject property is surrounded by single-family residential on all four sides. To the south, it's R1B. To the north and west is R1C, and I apologize. Across the railroad, it is a B4 and I1 zone further to the east, but the subject property itself is bound wholly by single-family residential. If we look at the uses in the general vicinity, to the south is a KU facility. So although it's single-family residential, it's being used in a more industrial manner. To the north and west is single-family residential with the open gate subdivision and the stone gate subdivisions. This is the existing building on the property. It was previously used as a church built in the 1950s, and there was a conditional use approved at this site. It's been vacant for about a year, and the applicant has purchased the property in hopes of using the existing building with remodeling it for a child care center. So they are also asking for a conditional use with this request today, which Mr. Emmons will present a little bit later on. They are proposing to have 85 children in the facility, and then they will need to construct a play area associated with the child care center. There will also be some right-of-way improvements along the subject property. So this is Stone Road looking towards New Circle, so it covers the frontage along the KU facility. and you can see that they do have a sidewalk and curbs, and it's been widened. In the background of the photograph, as it gets closer to New Circle Road, the road does narrow down, and those right-of-way improvements have not been constructed. Looking in the opposite direction towards Pasadena Drive, to the north, again, beyond the subject property, right-of-way improvements have been constructed, including a sidewalk and curbs. So the green area you see here is the frontage along the subject property. And then this is a photo of the rear of the property, which includes the parking lot that's already existing, and then there is some open space to the rear of that. And then further beyond the trees is where the KU property begins. the applicant and there's just an aerial view again you can see the single family residential to the north and west and the ku facility to the south and a bit of open space for the ku facility to the east of the property so the applicant believes that the existing r1b zoning for the property is is inappropriate and the proposed r3 is appropriate at this location and they cited several justification points. First, the subject property has never been used for single family residents. It's always been a church, so a semi-public use at this location. In addition, it's currently underutilized because it's vacant, so they believe that rezoning the property will allow for a greater number of possible conditional uses at this location, which is true. And all of those types of conditional uses would be appropriate buffers between the single family residential to the north and the existing KU facility to the south. In addition, R3 does continue to allow residential at this location. And the staff did note in the report that beyond the adjoining properties, Stone Road does have a mixture of land uses, including further to the south, many warehouses, a private school, as well as some small lot industrial uses closer to New Circle Road. So this is somewhat of a mixture of uses in this vicinity. In addition, the applicant, well, the staff also mentioned that the, although the church, loss of a church in this area could be considered detrimental. The staff believed that the addition of a child care center could really be an asset to the neighborhood and improve the livability of this area of the county and would add to the family-oriented service in this area. The applicant also contended that the R3 zoning is consistent with the surrounding land uses and with the 2013 comprehensive plan. even though there's no residential use planned at this time, it is appropriate because the R3 zone is appropriate because it is compatible with the surrounding zoning, which is single-family residential. And in reviewing the proposed use and zone, the staff did believe that going to a P1 or B1 would be more intense at this location than would be desirable. So the staff agrees that the R3 zoning is compatible with the adjacent zoning and provides for appropriate use at this location. The staff recommended approval, as did the zoning committee three weeks ago, of this requested zone change, and I'd be happy to answer any questions about that. Any questions, Ms. Wade? Yeah, I do, Mike. Yes, sir. What is the KU property zoned? It's R1B. It is a single family residential zone, but it's a utility, so they don't adhere to our local zoning regulations. And that's been it for a long time? It has. I'm not sure for how long. Thank you. Any other questions? No, thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. Good afternoon. As Tracy went over the zone change proposal, I had the zoning development plan, DP 2014-39, for little beginners childhood development. tracy gave you a lot of information as to the location and how the building is laid out on the property we have stone road coming to the west side of the property it goes back up against the ku utilities area the building is facing to the north with the sidewalk and the parking in the rear. The committee has reviewed, and we came up with a list of conditions. Condition number one is that the council approves the zone change. Conditions two through seven are our typical sign-offs from our different governmental agencies within the city. We have several different cleanup conditions, 8 through 15, just little things that need to be corrected on the plan. Condition number 16, it says delete note number 1. This note makes reference to no building permits before final development plan. This plan is a final development plan, so that note can be removed. Clarify street cross-section for Stone Road. We believe this is mislabeled and this cross-section is correct, but we need that to be verified. Denote planning commission approval of conditional use. Jimmy Emmons is going to present that to you here in a few minutes. And then resolve extent of improvements for the entrance apron to the approval of Division of Traffic. We spoke about improvements being done along Stone Road, sidewalk being connected from one side to the other. We also talked about the apron on the driveway to be widened. The driveway is only 22 feet wide, and to make it easier for people to come in and out if two cars are there, they wanted to see a turning radius. So the staff believes that if we have a note on the plan to denote how that's going to be done prior to your certificate of occupancy, that will help to resolve that issue. If there's any other questions. Any questions from Ms. Galt? Yes, ma'am. Capacity assurance, does it enter into the zone change or is that picked up later? Ms. Plumley, we checked this bank early on in the review, and this is one of the banks that has a positive balance. There probably will be an increase in flow just from the conversion from a church to a child care center. But this was a bank that was not close to the number or in the negative, but it was a positive bank. Ms. Gallup, the sidewalk, the cross section, does it include the sidewalk? Yes. Well, the street cross section they show right now does include a sidewalk, and that's why we're wanting to just verify that because, as Tracy spoke, road improvements have been done to both sides of this property. To see the road improvements along this would be helpful. But you're saying it does include? It does show a sidewalk on it. We just have it mislabeled, and we just want to verify that that's the correct sidewalk. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Mr. Emmons Thank you Cheryl Mr. Chairman Members of the commission I'm happy to present The conditional use portion Of this request as you are well aware The applicants are requesting A conditional use in conjunction with This zone change in order to operate At daycare The church Has been on this site for a while According to the applicant, a church has been on this property since at least 1965. The last time that a church was approved by the Board of Adjustment for this property was in 1980, 34 years ago when the addition to the rear of the structure was added. The proposed child care center would be in a building that's about 4,000 square feet. They are proposing an outdoor play area that would be located to the side of the building that's about 2,000 square feet. They are proposing 85 children, as Ms. Wade said. That 85 children number is limited by two factors on this particular application. The interior space that's inside the building is the state has regulations on how many child per square foot. and also the 2,000 square feet for the outdoor play area is limited by our zoning ordinance. So for those two limiting factors, that's where they came up with the number of children for 85. When this staff report was being written, one thing that was not in this application was the hours of operation. The staff made an assumption that this daycare facility would have a fairly typical hours of operation of Monday through Friday, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and as such, the staff recommended approval subject to a condition with those hours of operation. We have conferred with the applicant, and that is the hours of operation that they plan to do this, and it's my understanding that they are okay with that condition. The staff is recommending approval. The conversion of this church into a daycare is a logical decision to make. The staff is recommending approval for the listings that are both listed on the agenda and in your staff report, primarily that this is an appropriate location because the church has been here for well over 50 years and has not caused a problem. The conversion to a child care center is a logical next step if a church is not going to be there. The conditions of approval are fairly standard, including the condition of approval on the hours of operation, since it was not included as a part of this application. If you have any questions for me about the conditional use or any other questions about this application, I believe this concludes the staff presentations. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you very much. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Nathan Billings from Billings Law Firm. Here on behalf of the applicant today, with me I have Mr. Simon Saeed, who is the owner of the daycare that we'll look to open up in this location. Generally, we don't have anything else to add to the staff report. As you recall, we were actually here about a month or two ago on a very similar change of a church to a daycare on Todd's Road. This is similar in nature, different adjacent properties, but similar concept change with respect to basically a church having to shut down and find alternative use to that other than development into residential areas. With respect to that, we have no disagreements with staff on any of their recommendations. Probably our only area of either clarification or exploration is the infrastructure improvements along Stone Road. Mr. Rick Moore was our surveyor who was working on the plat issues. For those of you at the Ken meetings, you may have been told he actually passed away on the night before the last committee meetings. So he was primarily handling those. I'm not familiar with all his discussions with traffic engineering on those. To the extent we can avoid the cost of providing this infrastructure, we'd certainly like to do that. We also understand that there may be needs to do that to comply with what has been put on either side of this property. With that, we entertain any questions the commission has for us. Thank you. Mr. Penn's got a question. Mr. Billings, I guess my question to you is this. Being that you have property to the rear of the church, is there a security issue with that property as far as a child care center from the parking lot on back? Is there a fence around the KU property? I think it's six feet. Yeah, there's a six foot security fence around that. All the way around the property? Not all the way around our property, around the KU property. No, I'm talking about your property. We're going from a church, which is not used every day, to a child care center, which security is a main issue. The question becomes, the land that you're not using, where the trees show there, is there any security issue there that needs to be addressed? Microphone, Mr. Billings. Need you at the microphone. Take the microphone with you. If you want to go to the map, just take the microphone with you. To make sure I understand the question correctly, is it along this tree line here you're looking at or along this property line here? I'm talking about the whole property from the parking lot back. Does that need to be fenced across behind the parking lot in order to provide security for your daycare? These properties back here are on the residential lots on Stone Gateway. This right here is the boundary with KU, which is where the six-foot fence is. How far forward does that six-foot fence come? It's up to the parking area. It's up to here. Fencing. All fence all around here. It's hard to see on the area, though. What is your all's intent to do with that part of the property? This one, in the future, can be play area. We can close it up, fence it up here around the parking lot with the high fence. Okay. Whatever the child council recommends. All right. Thank you. Mr. Penn, on the aerial, this might not be exact, but my understanding is the fence basically starts here. So it comes back this way. along here, along the property. I believe there's a gate right there that then continues on along behind the adjacent industrial property. I guess what I'm trying to get at, do you have any intended use for the rest of that property behind your parking lot? Other than what's the continued use for the behind the parking lot? Just as a play area in the future. In other words, I think the childless play area has to be fenced in. I understand that. I'm talking about future use. Do you have any plans to use that property? Other than for the fence and play area, no. Okay. Thank you. In other words, there's no plan to expand the parking lot into there. There's no plan to subdivide. There's no plan to develop residential areas or anything like that on the property. Thank you. I'm not sure if that was a question, but. Well, I just wanted to know the use because whatever the use would be would affect what you're doing there. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Billings, one question. You threw something up that caused me a little bit of caution. Infrastructure-wise, sidewalk-wise, apron-wise, are you agreeable to the sidewalks and apron as being asked for at this time? As always, I would like to avoid costs for my client and having to install infrastructure. But I think in this case, because there's infrastructure already on both sides of this property, whereas maybe in other cases it has not been done, That would not be inappropriate in this case. So you are agreeable to that? He's trying to nail me down. In order to accomplish our zone change to conditional use request, we would be. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Can an attorney be equivocal? Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else that would like to speak in regards to this plan? Thank you, Mr. Brillings. Thank you, sir. Ms. Wade? I just wanted to clarify two items. The applicant in their justification for the zone change actually stated that they were willing to construct those infrastructure improvements. So they are on record as being willing to do so. And the play area on their development plan is shown to the north of their building, not to the rear of the parking lot. So if that's something that's going to change, the site plan or the development plan would need to be modified. So I wanted to clarify those two things. So the dark area to the left of the building is the playground? These X's are typically fence markings, and it's labeled as proposed play area. Okay. Yes, sir? Mr. Chairman, the play area is this area here. Yes. The dark area? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or motion. Motions. We need motions in regards to the MARC 2014-9, the zone change, and we've got a conditional use and they have a zoning development plan. Yes, ma'am. Move approval of MARC 2014-9, Little Beginners Child Development Center. for the reasons outlined by staff, including can I do the conditional use altogether? I'd like to keep them separate if possible. Motion's been for approval of the MARV 2014-10. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Plumlee. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Ms. Blanton. Move approval of the conditional use with the eight conditions outlined by staff. Motion to remain seconded for approval of the conditional use. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Move approval of ZDP 2014-39 Little Beginner's Child Development with the 19 conditions outlined by staff. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with 19 conditions. Mr. Penn, as far as the 16th, the recommendation is to delete it off the plan. We need that condition to make sure it's deleted from the plan. 16 answer. Question as far as number 17, it was my understanding we needed to leave that as well. 17 will allow for 19. It will allow for the resolution under 19 to be documented on the plan. Okay. So the motion has been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2014-39 within 19 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. We'll move on to on page three, item two. It's RML Construction LLP, Zoning Map Amendment, and Cadentown Zepid Division, Lot 10, Brighton 3050, Zoning Development Plan. We do have MARLV 2014-10, the zone change request. We do have a variance on this as well as the ZDP 2014-40 in which we do have revised staff recommendations that are on a yellow sheet before you. And there's a supplemental staff report in regards to the variance request that's on a tan sheet before you. Yes, ma'am. This request to rezone is being brought forth by RML Construction LLP, and their request is to rezone from a single-family residential to both an R4 and a B1 zone. And the property proposed for rezoning is almost two acres, so it's split between 9.92 acres. That would be in the R4 zone and 1.01 acres in the B1 zone, so almost exactly 50-50 on that. And the map on the easel as well as on the overhead tried to indicate that the R4 zone where that line is proposed between R4 and B1, so B1 to the south and the R4 portion to the north. The B1 portion would have frontage on Liberty Road, as well as what is currently right-of-way, was former right-of-way of Bryant Road here, and then the Liberty Road frontage here. but the R4 portion would not have frontage onto either of those two rights of way. It would be accessed via some other property as shown on the development plan. The immediate vicinity was a rural crossroads in the past of Bryant Road, Manowar Boulevard, excuse me, Bryant Road came through here, Todd's Road, and then Liberty Road. So there were actually two intersections. Kind of did a dog leg, I guess. With the 2008 widening of Liberty Road and its realignment, that created the frontage that the subject property now has. So Liberty Road curved and came through here and now intersects with Manowar Boulevard. that also created a Cadentown Road to the east, and then a renaming of Todd's Road. This portion became Old Todd's Road, and the section across Manowar Boulevard is now considered Todd's Road. In the immediate vicinity, we have R4 zoning to the east, R3 zoning to the north. Excuse me, there's not R4 adjacent. R3 is actually on both the north side and the east side. Single-family residential to the west, including a small triangle that is a remnant piece along Liberty, and then the property directly across Liberty from that. In addition, Brighton Place Shops and the Todd Center are mostly zoned neighborhood business, and that is this area to the southeast and south of the subject property, and I say mostly because there is a small triangle of B3 zoning for a car wash. In addition, the Cadentown Historic District is located further to the west of the subject property across Liberty Road and Cadentown Road. the applicant is proposing this combination of r4 and b1 zoning in order to develop both an apartment building which will be complementary to the adjacent multifamily development at brighton 3050 which has been marketed in the past as the summit that building on the r4 portion will have 24 units for a density of 26.09 dwelling units per acre. And in the B1 portion, they're proposing to develop a mixed-use building with approximately 12,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, typical B1 uses. And then above that, on the second and third floor, they're proposing 16 dwelling units. Did I do something here? Cynthia, my pointer is not working. Thank you. Just an aerial view of the subject property there outlined in red and you can see the density with the multifamily. This is looking towards the south. So the multifamily here for the existing multifamily development and then to the north is a townhouse development as well as across Liberty Road. There's a CVS also across Liberty Road and adjacent to the subject property, a gas station, and then the rest of the Brighton Place shops. Can you switch that for me, Cynthia? No? Okay. This is the, just some on-ground photos. The entrance drive to, this is the back portion of the multifamily development, Brighton 3050 apartment complex, which is east of the subject property. So the tree line that you see runs along the subject property and its shared common boundary, which I'll point out is here, to the east. There we go. It's not been lived in for quite some time. So that's looking to the north. A little bit further, closer to the intersection with Liberty Road, looking back at the Brighton shops with the subject property on the left side of the photo. Excuse me. Your left. And the gas station to the right. At the intersection, this is looking across towards the Todd's Road Shopping Center. with Manowar Boulevard in the background, and then this would be Old Todd's, that intersection, and then this is primarily a view of Liberty Road. This is approximately the location where the, I guess, frontage for the subject property ends. So it is, again, looking at that same intersection, and this is Liberty Road. and its intersection here with the Brighton Shops entrance and Old Todd's Road. Looking again towards Man of War Boulevard. From Liberty Road, looking down towards the Brighton Shops to the east, and that is again the residence on the subject property. The petitioner is requesting these two rezonings, and their main contention is that the R1D zone on the subject property is inappropriate at this location and that the R4 and B1 is appropriate. They also are of the opinion that the proposal is supported by our goals and objectives in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, mainly in terms of infill of this urban land that's underutilized and that that will help to safeguard our rural land. and in addition that this is compatible and sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood. Although single-family residential development is possible on this about two-acre property, in looking at the surrounding uses, the staff felt that a more intense land use at this location was probably more appropriate given the multifamily and the commercial development in the area. The proposed rezoning of the subject property will allow development that is very similar to the existing character in the area, specifically the character being commercial uses that front along Manowar Boulevard and a little bit on Liberty Road. And then as you get back from that intersection of Liberty and Manowar along Liberty Road, it becomes more residential in character. The petitioner is generally in keeping with this, their plan is generally in keeping with this development pattern, and their proposed zoning stops approximately the same distance back from Manowar in this intersection as the current CVS development. So that's an existing B1 use as well. the staff finds that this proposed zone change is appropriate in terms of the R4A and the B1 uses for the property and is in keeping with the character of the area I believe our findings reflect that the zoning committee reviewed this three weeks ago and they also recommended approval of the zone change be happy to answer any questions Mr. Finn the little triangle piece that's left remnant, whatever you want to call it. What's that zoned? It's also zoned R1D, as is the subject property currently. Liberty Road split it in half here. So half of that property is on this side, and then there's this small triangle on the north side of Liberty Road, and it actually has access to Cadentown Road. Its address, I believe, is it? I guess I can't swear to that, but Fading down road address. Approximately how much land is that? Anybody know? I'd say a quarter of an acre maybe. Okay. I think that time is about three tenths. Three tenths. Okay, thanks. Other questions? No? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is at the bottom of page four on your agenda. We have passed out revised conditions for you as well on the yellow sheet of paper. Again, this preliminary development plan that depicts the proposed development of the property. Here we have Old Todd's Road, and here's an extension of that right-of-way providing frontage in this location. Here is Liberty Road, B1 lot, proposed B1 lot, proposed R4 lot. This is the Brighton or Summit Place apartment complex that the applicant also owns. They are proposing a 12,000-square-foot B1 building in this location. They are proposing a second and third floor residential units, 16 two-bedroom units. The residential building in this location is three stories. It, too, is proposing two-bedroom units. The total is 24 on this lot. Here's an access point off of the right-of-way from Old Todd's Road into the parking area. This is an existing, you saw it on the aerial photograph, access road into the apartments, and you can see they're proposing some off-site improvements associated with this development on this property. They share parking and an access point here that will allow folks to access this property from another location. The apartment building is three stories, as I stated. The lot coverage is 10,995 square feet in the R4, and they are under. They're just shy of 2,000 square feet under their FAR as well. So they do fit on the property. That was of some concern initially because this is .92 acres. It's the smaller lot of the two. This is just over an acre. But we have reconciled our math differences with them. And you can see by a condition on the plan, number nine specifically, that we wanted to be sure we have agreed on a number. We were off by a very small amount of square footage, but we want to be sure we agree on that. The height is important because there is a height to yard ratio that kicks in on R4 depending on the height of the building. So we just need that number. We don't believe there's going to be an issue with their ability to meet it if they have to meet it. But again, it's just one of those numbers we have to have in order to verify things. Again, and that will become important on the final development plan as well. We have standard conditions for approval that you can see, including a one, number eight, that is should you grant the variance. And Jimmy's going to cover that. But there is a requested variance, and we've kind of highlighted these areas. It's a landscaping variance that they are requesting in this location. We had a discussion about open space, particularly on the B1 property. They meet it on the R4. There's plenty of green. In the B1, they are proposing those residential units, and there is an open space requirement in the B1 for the residents. That's its intent. They're meeting a number in this instance in terms of square footage provided. Staff does have concern about usable open space and what that constitutes. in particular we're we're concerned about the area at this location again we believe that that can be worked out at the final development plan our concern is that you have commercial uses on the first floor you're providing open space for residents there could be a built-in conflict with those uses so we we believe but we do believe that there's some options available and we can work that out at the final development plan, how to locate the required usable open space. This access point here, on the previous plan, there was a drive-through, and they've deleted that and shifted the building. And this has helped this relationship quite a bit because, as you know, and you can see from the photograph, this is kind of wide open and a lot of traffic, and there's very little access controls here. So that was of some very strong initial concern to both planning and to traffic engineering. They are providing 90 parking spaces on the B-1, and that's another item. They only required 54, so that's another reason staff believes that's a considerable over-parking. And we believe there is some flexibility in working with them on the final development plan on the open space. Lot number two, the residential lot, is required 43 spaces, and they're providing 47 for the parking in the R4 area. If you'll look at your conditions, again, you can see that we need them to denote the timing of the off-site parking improvements in the dumpster location that are on the adjacent property, and then to denote the timing of the amendment to the existing final development plan for the adjoining property. Again, it has its own development plan that will have to be amended, and we would like to have the timing of that amendment denoted on this plan as well. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am. Tom, there essentially will be two exits then, so people don't have to come out. Does the exit that is so close to Liberty, they can take the other one? Yes, ma'am. This is an access point, and there's an access point here that will allow them this point. Or, if they choose, they can go back through the apartment complex and come out to the light on Manowar up in this location. It might be a little convoluted, but those that live there will figure it out, I'm sure. Thank you. Tom, do you have any knowledge inside as to the reason for the off-street improvements? I'm sure they need a dumpster somewhere, but the parking, what I'm looking at is parking, if it's not needed? I believe the applicant could explain their rationale for that. The dumpster, I think, is an obvious reason. There's room here to do it as opposed to here. and to share it. The parking, they seem to want it, again, because they're, as I stated, there's considerable over-parking on the property. To me, it just seems like we've tried to stay away from the parking lots where they're backing out into traffic per se, even though that is private. It is a private access easement. Okay. Thank you. Others? Mr. Emmons? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I am presenting the variance request that's in conjunction with this zone change. The applicants have requested two variances, both to landscaping requirements, the first one being to a zone-to-zone screening requirement between the B1 portion of the property and the residential zones, And the second one would be the interior landscaping for where the interior to the project, where the interior landscaping requirements for the parking lot. The applicant presented a very good justification for the proposed development. If you think about the reason why we have zone-to-zone screening, and that's in order to separate incompatible uses. the applicants are proposing an integrated mixed-use, where the mixed-use building in the B-1 portion of the property would be integrated with the rest of the residential apartment complex and be integrated in that sense. So in that sense, the staff did recommend approval of the requested landscape variances. The zoning committee did review these landscape variances, and also recommended approval following the staff's recommendation. There was one caveat, and at the time of the committee meetings, the staff had not had an opportunity to bring these landscape requests in front of the Landscape Review Committee. As such, two days ago they met. Mr. Cravens is on that Landscape Review Committee, and he can correct me if I say anything incorrect. But the staff has presented a supplemental staff report outlining the discussion and the motion that was made by the Landscape Review Committee. They also agreed with the staff and the zoning committee and recommended approval of the requested variances. There was one clarification that was made during the meeting, in large part with the applicant's presentation of the exhibit that's on the screen. the, as it was written, they've always requested the two variances, the zone-to-zone screening and the interior vehicular use area screening. On our original staff report, we combined both of those variances into one request, and there was some question as to whether that also included the perimeter zone-to-zone screening, and it did. The staff is recommending approval with that clarification as recommended by the zoning committee. The good news is that this clarification does not require any changes to the reasons that we are recommending approval of the variances, nor does it require any changes to the conditions of that approval. The staff is recommending approval now also with the Zoning Committee recommendation of approval and the Landscape Review Committee's recommendation of approval for the reasons listed on your agenda and in your staff reports. If you have any questions for me about those variances, I would be happy to try and answer them. Otherwise, I do believe this concludes the staff presentation and we can answer any other questions that you may have throughout the hearing. Any questions? No. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Rena Wiseman here for RML Construction along with Nick Nicholson and Roy Cayley. Just one explanation. RML owns what used to be called the Summit Apartments. It's now we've remarketed it as Brighton 3050. And it was built by RML almost 20 years ago and is still owned and managed by RML. We purchased this property just a few months ago when it became available specifically to incorporate it into 3050. So the idea is not just the totally residential building will be part of 3050, but will, as will the second building, even though it has business on the first floor. There will be comparable architecture, and the folks who live in that building will have access to the amenities at 3050, including the clubhouse, the open space, swimming pool, and so on. So we do intend this to be an integrated use, and that is one reason we're showing some additional things on the other property. We do control that property, so we'll have to amend that plan, and we'll work out a note as to the timing of how that fits in with this development plan. One thing I did want to address the question about the parking. We do have more than is required. A couple of reasons. It's our experience in operating and owning several apartment developments and townhouse developments that residents tend to use more than what's required. So we try to deal with that problem going in, then later. And then in this situation, when we're mixing business and residential, we want to make sure that we don't create conflict between our residents who live in this building and the businesses and the customers that come there. So that is why we're adding that additional parking so we can have friendly interactings between the different uses on the property. We did not ask for mixed use because we didn't qualify. We either were knocked out because of location or because of size. So that's why we ended up with the B1, R4 combination. We are in agreement with all of the conditions set forth, both on the development plans that Tom has examined or presented to you. He did examine our development plan. That's why we spent a lot of time on this. And with the report on the variants, including the clarification that Jimmy just presented to you, and are agreeable to the findings that the staff recommends that you make. So with that, I've tried to keep this quick in view of the time limit. If you have any questions, we'd be glad to answer it. Otherwise, we request your approval. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Wiseman? Not at this time? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience would like to speak in regards to this plan? Seeing none, and if there's no questions, we'll move on. And I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motions. Did we catch everyone off guard? Yes, I'm ready for a motion. Turn the microphone on, Mr. Drake. Well, I did. There you go. I recommend approval of MARV 2014-10, RML Construction LLP, as has been presented. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? And it has been seconded by Mr. Cravens. This is for approval of MARV 2014-10 with the staff recommendations. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. The variance? Yeah. Go ahead. We're ready for you. Go ahead, Mr. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recommend approval of the variants as has been discussed and presented by the staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the supplemental staff report as presented by the staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the revised staff recommendation for the ZDP. Mr. Drake, would you like to continue? You're on a roll. I keep waiting for it. There we go. Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of, what is it, ZDP 214-40? Yes, sir. I recommend approval with conditions as has been presented by the staff and agreed by the applicant. Yes, sir. This will be revised conditions, 12 revised conditions. The motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Cravens for the revised staff conditions, ZDP 2014-40, the 12 conditions on the yellow page. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Next on our agenda is a public facility review. It's 2014-1 LFUCG Senior Citizens Center. It's at the top of the page on page 6. I'm sorry, page 5. Good afternoon. As Chairman Owens said, this is on page 5 of your agenda, and it's item A under Commission Items. It's PFR 2014-1, and it is a request by the Department of Social Services within the Irving County Government to review their proposal for a new Senior Citizen Center in Idle Hour Park. The address of the property is actually 195 Life Lane, and it's part of the Idle Hour Park property, which has the address of 212 St. Anne Drive. We've got the entire park property goes around like so, and then the site for the senior center is in this portion of the property right here. It's about 4.46 acres. The entire park is 23.8 acres, and that portion of the park is zoned AU. The structure, the building footprint of the structure will be between 35,000 and 36,000 square feet, and we'll also have 136 parking spaces. And if you could put the other, the site plan up there. That'll show how the building and the parking are laid out relative to the rest of the property. Right there is what is known as Life Lane. It's the road that goes up between Southland Christian Church, or on the long side of Southland Christian Church, and then behind the church and behind Home Depot and accesses New Circle Road. Freedom Dodge dealership is right here, and there is a parking area within the park right here. This is the entire site that would be the 4.46 acres. All of this is parking with a drop-off area right here, and then the building is actually right there. And then we've got outdoor areas. There's parking for service and employees back in the back there. As you know, the 2013 plan does not have a land use map, but the 2007 map recommended public recreation for the property, and that was basically because it was owned and operated by the Irving County government as a public park. And ownership and activity for the property has not changed since then, so I feel quite sure that if we did have a land use map, it would still recommend public recreation for this. Based on a 2008 survey regarding park usage and a follow-up 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, it was a recommendation that more opportunities for flexibility of uses within the parks would be made available, and so that was to also include senior centers, and this property would be a good location for a senior center as part of the park operation. They're compatible uses. The 2013 plan is entirely supportive of this. There are themes, goals, and objectives, and texts that support this, and the themes and goals and objectives that apply to this are on pages 2 and 3 of your staff report. several years ago the existing center was determined to be inadequate that's the one that's at the corner of alumni drive and nicholasville road it was no longer adequate to serve the needs of fayette county citizens the building is 17 000 square feet it serves about a thousand people annually and an average of 125 people per day and they decided that a new site was needed and discussion has been ongoing since then regarding a new location that would be large enough for a new center plus the amount of parking that they need and the center would have to be big enough to expand the programming and allow for more usage by attendance. That one of the possibilities was a one location, a main location, and then some satellite locations and then the other possibility would be just the one. Right now they're just going to do the one and then they kept the option open of having future satellite locations. Between July 9th August 20th of last year at the direction of council several site visits were made by the CAO and the Commissioner of Social Services they visited 16 properties in addition to nine properties that have been reviewed by by the consultant for the project some of these properties were in by the urban county government some were privately owned and they also looked at YMCA properties for the idea of program collaboration they had in mind though to to keep a property large enough to accommodate a senior citizen's building on its own, as well as the YMCA building, but then still possibly collaborate with programs. The site size requirement for this was a minimum of four acres, which is what they looked at. That would accommodate the building and the parking. They made a list of all the properties. They reviewed them with regard to advantages and disadvantages of each, and several were eliminated. They took the list down to five, from 25 to five, and presented those to the Irving County Council at their work session on August 20th. In addition to Idle Hour Park, they looked at Liberty Park, which is off of Liberty Road, Turflin Mall. There were two options there. One was using the existing space within the old Dillard's building, because that's, I think, 80,000 square feet, and they were going to use at least half of that. and then the other option would be to do a new build behind the building because there's plenty of parking available there. And then they looked at two YMCA sites, the one in Hamburg that's not built yet. It would be on the corner of Rosebud and Sir Barton. And then the North Lexington location, the Loudoun Avenue location because that property is big enough to accommodate a new building and the YMCA. They used the same set of criteria for all the properties, level of traffic and general traffic patterns in the area, crime statistics, the capability of the property to support the parking in the building, and then ease of access for the participants, meaning that they would be able to get there from any place in Lexington. There was a lot of discussion and several questions on the part of the council regarding the various sites, and when they started talking about the Eidolour site, it was noted that the area, the specific area right here, was the location for several years of youth football practice, and so there was a lot of consternation about that. They had a lot of discussion about that. And then when it became apparent that Idle Hour was a good idea, a good place for the senior center, the director of parks and recreation at the time got up and said that they will find a place for the football practice. They're not going to kick the kids out of the park. So I believe that they have found a place within the park to relocate the football practice. And the council voted unanimously to accept Idle Hour as the location for the senior center. And then in the 2013 plan, we have census data from 2000, 2010, and we also have projections up to 2035. And those are broken up into age groups. By 2035, the projection is up to 54,000 people for people within the age range of 65 to 84. The Senior Citizen Center serves people over age 60. So that population, combined with the 65 to 84 population, there should be 60 to 61,000 people that would be able to use the senior center. And with that projection and the services that are desired by the seniors, all of that points to the greater need for a new, larger facility and possibly some satellite locations in the future. Like I said, they are keeping that option open. The new center will have administrative office space, activity space, and flexible use space. and about 30,000 square feet will consist of the programmable and the administrative space. Programmable space will just be on its own, 22,000 square feet. That will allow for additional programming and more participation from senior citizens. The time frame for construction was originally 18 to 24 months, and they would be occupying the building at the end of that 24 months, and now it's down to 14 to 16 months, so it's on a faster track than it was originally when they presented it to council. Existing program consists of classes, exercise, speakers about health issues and whatever, computer classes, general recreational space, a dining room, a warming kitchen, TV lounge, resource library, a health clinic and personal services, social services case management, and referral. And that is not an all-inclusive list. They have other programs besides that. And all of these will be maintained and probably expanded. They'll also, and I think this is pretty We'll have a soundproof music room so that anybody who wants to practice their instruments can do that without disturbing anybody. Bluegrass Community Action Partnership will have an office and space there to provide daily lunches for the people. And there will also be space for other community agencies to be located there on a part-time basis. Their current hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 8 to 5. And initially, it'll probably stay the same. and then as things expand, then they'll probably extend the hours to 8 o'clock at night. And then that will allow for the more expanded programming and more participants to participate. There are several reasons that Eidl Hour was recommended to the council and why they chose this park. The main reason, I think, probably was because it's owned by the urban county government, and that is cutting down on cost initially. It won't be as much to construct a new building there. They already own the property. The existing amenities that are there, they have the ball fields, and then there's space enough for a walking track. It's close to, but it's not exactly in residential neighborhoods. Some of the reasons or some of the properties that were eliminated were eliminated because of the lack of accessibility. They were too far into the neighborhoods or too far out in Fayette County to be accessible to everybody. So this is one of the reasons that they chose this park. It's more centrally located and it's accessible from all parts of Lexington because it's located right off of New Circle Road. Almost anybody can get to this location. And then it's only four miles from the existing Senior Citizen Center. The comp plan addresses the need to provide community facilities and make them available to all citizens. And it encourages accessibility in all situations. And obviously a part of that is physical accessibility. and one way to provide that is to provide alternatives to driving because a lot of senior citizens don't drive anymore. A lot of them do, but a lot of them don't. And mass transit is one of those ways to accomplish that. Lex Tran has agreed to provide an outbound and an inbound stop right in front of the property, right about in this location right there. There's an inbound and an outbound on the other side of Life Lane, but the inbound will be on the side of the senior center. They're going to reroute one of their two routes that goes in this area. Theme F, Goal 1, and Objective B of the Comp Plan references Destination 2040, and that was a planning effort in the Newberry Administration. It says that the urban county government should strive to meet local standards to accomplish the community's vision. And the primary goal of that was how to protect everything we value in Fayette County while still continuing to grow as a community. And there are four aspects of community life that became the framework for that planning effort. Human needs, physical growth, economic expansion, and cultural creativity. And human needs is obviously the most applicable of the four relative to the relationship between the comp plan, Destination 2040, and the construction of the senior center. And one observation in Destination 2040 was that several elements must be present for a community to be viable and a desirable place to live. Otherwise, people will move elsewhere. Adequate nutrition, protection of natural resources, governmental services that provide for citizen safety and welfare, medical services, health care, and educational opportunities are all the human needs that were listed in Destination 2040. And the programming that's going to be offered by the Senior Citizen Center provides most, if not all, of these, and so contributes to the vision of Destination 2040. By inference, then, it specifically supports that goal and objective of the comprehensive plan, accomplishing a community's vision. And as I noted before, the comp plan emphasizes the importance of providing community facilities that are accessible to all citizens. Specifically stated in the community facilities section is that community facilities improve Lexington by providing education, community meeting places, training, and recreation. And again, all of these services will be provided by the Senior Citizen Center, and they already are. It also states that in the 2008 Parks and Recreation survey that I referenced before, that respondents expressed an interest in several additions and recreational opportunities to neighborhood parks, including the addition of senior centers. And then the follow-up 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommended that Parks and Recreation create and identify opportunities for joint use facilities and for more flexibility to use parks in multiple multiple ways. So based on each of these one of the recommendations of the comprehensive plan is to customize parks to respond to adapting trends, demographics, and flexible uses. This directly supports the location of the senior center in the Idle Hour Park and we have found this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan and hope that you find that as well. Specifically the purpose of the new senior citizen Center is to accommodate more attendees and better programming opportunities as the existing facility is no longer adequate to serve its participants. The reason for choosing Eidelauer Park is to provide a fairly centralized, easily accessible facility that has existing amenities and that will accommodate a larger building, sufficient parking and associated activities, all of which is endorsed by the comprehensive plan either directly or indirectly. And the finding, those are the findings, the recommendation, the only one that we have is that the parking lot be screened as it shows on the on the site plan we have several people here to answer any questions you might have I'll be glad to answer any questions as far as the staff report goes but Christy Stambaugh who is the program administrator Joyce Thomas who is in general services and Beth Mills who is the Commissioner of Social Services is here Harding Harding Dowell who is the architect for the property and Ramona Frye who is the landscape architect for the site design is also here. And I'm sure there are other people here as well if you have any questions at all about anything. All right, Mr. Penn has a question, Barbara. Yes, sir. I've been reading on this thing and it looks to me like that, is this within the FEMA floodplain area? There is a large area of FEMA floodplain and it actually is not, no, not the site. The site is just out of the FEMA floodplain. If you could put that other map back up there, Please, I'll show you. Some of us that were kind of looking at this with more interest than we did years ago kind of wondered that. Right. Here, this is the specific site right here, and then all of this hatched area is the FEMA floodplain, so it's just outside of the floodplain. And there is a detention basin on site, so that will help with any kind of runoff and hopefully not contribute to the FEMA area. Thank you. Okay, are there any other questions of Ms. Rikers? Yes. Is there a completion date? Completion date is within hopefully 16 months. I'm not sure exactly what the date is projected to be, but somebody can probably answer that. But it's within 16 months. All right. Would you all like to speak? We're happy to answer any questions. And, Mr. Plumlee, the goal is to be open December of 2015. we could okay um all right you've heard the recommendation uh do you have any recommendations for this project anyone that's about all we can do is recommend anything we they might have missed i don't think they missed anything Okay, so then I believe we need a motion to approve it. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I move approval of the proposed use for the LFUCG Senior Citizen Center at the location that was presented to us today. All right, very well. We have a motion for approval. We have a second. Second. Second, Ms. Plumlee. All right. Everybody. vote. That motion carries unanimous. All right. We have one other item left, I believe. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if we could refer you to page five of the agenda. Ms. Wade has an item, and then we have one other item after that. We spoke about this last week at the work session, but the staff would like to ask the Planning Commission to initiate a text amendment related to handicap accessible ramps, And this would be a change in Article 15-5A related to projections, specifically covered porches, stairways, and terraces. And the staff did contact the commission for, let's see, the mayor's commission for citizens with disabilities. and we've spoken to LFUCG's ADA coordinator and we've also spoken to the Division of Building Inspection related to this change. There were a few really small changes since last week and those were to add a few words in the first line. So ramps provided handicap access we added for mobility purposes And then at the end, instead of it referring directly to the requirements of the ADA, it actually is a little bit softer language and says to further the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And we wanted to clarify that the ADA requirements come into play mostly for commercial developments in multifamily, but not for single family. it's an option. There's kind of standards laid out for single family if someone wants to provide accessibility measures, ramps for their property, but those weren't requirements. So we wanted to clarify those two things. All right. Thank you. Any questions about this? Does that have anything to do with what we just heard. No, no, no. Separate issue. But if the commission initiates it, we would probably put it on in the next couple months for public hearing. Frank? I've got a question. I'm not sure that I understand this. Does it mean 15-5A, does that mean you couldn't have a covered deck that's greater than 8 feet wide? You can if you are not at the front setback line for your property. If the setback in your single-family residential zone is 30 feet and your house was built at 30 feet, then you can project 8 feet into the front yard, so up to the 22-foot line. If you want a covered porch larger than that, then you would need to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. But that's only if it encroaches on the setback requirements. Right. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? All right, let's move it. I move that we initiate in addition to Article 15-5D with the language the staff has recommended on handicap ramps. Okay, we have a motion to initiate. Do we have a second? Second. Second, Ms. Plumlee. Everybody vote when you can. The motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if we could take you to page 11 of your agenda to the addendum. We have one more commission item. The staff would recommend that the commission take action regarding your meeting and filing schedule to cancel your previously scheduled work session for next Thursday. Give you a Thursday off on a holiday. We think that might be a good idea. All right. All right. We have a motion for approval. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Second. Second. No objection. Motion carries. Not going to get the vote on that? No. The chair deemed that consensus. Thank you. Your next meeting will be at our committees in two weeks from today. Thank you. Thank you.