Music Music Music Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. If everyone take their seats, we'll get started here in just less than a minute. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'll call this meeting to order. It is August 28, 2014. like to welcome everyone here. Our staff is saying that we do have a lengthy day ahead of us. We do have to vacate this room about 530 or so to make room for the council today, so hopefully we can get through everything in a very timely fashion. First on the order agenda today would be approval of minutes that were emailed to everybody on July the 24th. I have not, I'm sorry, minutes for July 24th. I have not heard of any corrections. If there is, please let it be known. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the minutes for July 24th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made in second and for approval of the minutes of July 24th, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Seeing none, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, staff has one item to bring to your attention. It is on page one of your agenda. Under final subdivision plans, item A, plan 2014-49F, Pinehurst subdivision, lot 33. This was continued from your last meeting, and staff has received a request from the applicant to postpone this for two more weeks to your next subdivision meeting. I'm sorry, Tom, postponement until when? Two weeks. Two weeks. Okay, that would be September 11th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of 2014-49F Pinehurst for two weeks. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of 2014-49F until September 11, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Seeing none, we'll proceed on, and I'll ask Mr. Salih to sound the agenda for any possible abbreviated discussion items. Mr. Chairman, we can do that. We're not certain if any of the items remaining on your agenda will qualify for abbreviated hearing. The one that may be possible, the applicant's representative just walked in, that would be on the bottom of page four, Haymaker Development Company. At your zoning committee, the applicant did have a conditional zoning restriction they wished to discuss, and we have not heard whether they still desire to discuss that or not. It appears that this may qualify if there are no citizens present to comment on this item. Again, this is on the bottom of page four. It's item number three, Haymaker Development Company, LLC. This rezoning involves property with addresses on Midnight Pass, Wall Street, and Beaumont Center Circle. We would ask if anyone's present here in the room who wishes to discuss this proposed zone change for the Haymaker Development Company in the Beaumont Circle area. Is anyone present who wishes to discuss or object to that zone change? Okay, seeing none, this would qualify for abbreviated hearing. The other items, we understand that there are citizens who wish to discuss the Hamburg. There's a development plan issue on that one. Andover Partners and the Caller Property proposal. Okay, thank you, Mr. Sally. With that consideration, we will move to the Haymaker Development Company for an abbreviated hearing that is on page four. It's item number three. It's MAR 2014-15 and you do have an associated ZDP 2014-67 which follows on page five. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Wow. Always a challenge. This item is number three on your meeting agenda. It's the third of four zone changes on your meeting agenda. This is MAR 2014-15, a request by the Haymaker Development Company, LLC. This is a zone change that involves not a change from one zoning category to another, but instead seeks to modify the existing conditional zoning restrictions on eight vacant lots in the Beaumont area. The property addresses are 950 through 980 Midnight Pass, 3101 Wall Street, and two properties on Beaumont Center Circle, 3052 and 3084. We have an overhead, pardon me, on the overhead, we have an aerial photo of most of these lots. They are situated, all but one, inside Beaumont Center Circle, which is one of the identifying collector streets in the Beaumont Farm Development. Seven of them are subject of this zone change request. One, the property with the Wall Street address is outside of the circle but directly adjacent to it. We have them identified on the zoning map as well. All of them are currently zone B3, and the B3 zone line includes these properties, one vacant property that is not subject to the change, and the pavilion, Moon Dance Pavilion in Beaumont, that is well known now locally, is also zoned B3 and not part of this change. Other B3 lands have developed to the south and to the east of this location, as has much of the office zoning and the B6P shopping center that you see in the very top of the photo. The change proposed by the applicant is to significantly reduce the number of prohibited uses on these eight lots. The listing that would remain appears on your agenda and in the staff report. The uses that generally are sought to be removed include prohibitions on drug stores, discount stores, supermarkets, service stations and convenience stores, business colleges or technical or trade schools, schools for academic instruction, carnivals on a temporary basis, minor automobile and truck repair. The prohibited uses that would remain from the application are items A through I as they appear on your agenda, still leaving sale of farm equipment, automobiles, and so forth prohibited in this area, in addition to a number of indoor amusements, carnivals, taxidermy, parking lots and structures, adult uses, and shoe repair and clothing cleaners and things of that nature. So there's a significant relaxation of the allowable uses in this lot. In the staff's review of this application, we look not so much to the comprehensive plan as we do what has changed since these conditions were imposed. Most of them were imposed many years ago, the most recent about eight years ago in this area. And the staff has noted that there has been a change in the business climate in the community. In addition, a very great recession that the entire country has suffered through, including our local community. And clearly the magnitude of that recession was not known at the time these restrictions were put in place. So the staff does have the necessary finding, in our opinion, that there is a warrant. It is warranted, I should say, to relax the existing conditional zoning restrictions on the property. The staff is recommending, however, that two restrictions be retained that are not part of the application. They both deal with signage. On item J, under number three in the staff recommendation, the staff is recommending that billboards and advertising signs, the very large ones that are lit, still be prohibited on these eight lots. And in addition, we propose a signage restriction to freestanding signage, limiting it to no more than 10 feet in height. This would match the existing signage in much of the P1 area and would also be consistent with the other business zones in the Beaumont Farm area if that restriction were retained. The staff is recommending approval. We have for three reasons found that there have been unanticipated changes in the Beaumont area to allow these conditions to be relaxed. Those are listed. Our recommendation though is made subject to your approval and the certification of the development plan that will be presented to you in just a moment. But before that presentation, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about this zone change. Questions for Mr. Selle? Nope. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. As Bill said, we are in the Beaumont area, so we're looking at ZBP 2014-67 Beaumont Farm. They have shown us a layout of the lots that they are wanting to amend for the conditional zoning. And what they've done is they've shown like a proposed use. Nothing has been agreed upon. It's just shown so that you can see that there's restaurants and the hotel and the convenience stores they are asking for. The development plan was reviewed and we had a small list of conditions. One that the council approves the rezoning of the conditional zoning. and we had engineering traffic and building inspection, forester, environmental quality, and clarify the heights and stories of the buildings. A lot of times we just want to verify the height to yard ratio, so we need to make sure that we know what the total height is on the building. Other than that, the committee had recommended approval. If there are any questions. Any questions, Ms. Galt? No, I don't think so. Thank you. Mr. Cayley, anything to add? No, sir. We're in agreement. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none. Questions from the commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Yes, sir. Or motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR 2014-15 for reasons provided by staff. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2014-15 Haymaker Development Company, LLC. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then for the ZDP. I move approval of ZDP 2014-67 with the seven conditions. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2014-67 Beaumont Farms with the seven conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion also passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. going back to the regular agenda order we will go to page two item one it's a and m hamburg llc zoning map amendment and hamburg east lot two zoning development plan it's marv 2014-13 there is a zdp 2014-68 that follows on page three as well Good afternoon, Ms. Laid. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the commission. as Mr. Owens mentioned this is at the excuse me on page two and it is behind tab one in your notebooks so the documents that the applicant has submitted are in your notebook behind tab one this is a request to rezone property on a portion of 2500 Polo Club Boulevard to from an expansion area residential three with a transition area overlay to our community center CC zone The subject property is located on Polo Club Boulevard north of Manowar Boulevard, and the intersection is to the southeast of the subject property. It is a portion of a larger tract. This tract is currently split zoned. A portion is in the CC zone already, and the rest is in the EAR3TA zoning. To the north, also between the interstate and Polo Club Boulevard, is a large tract that is zoned for economic development and planned for a regional medical campus. To the east is property also owned by the applicant here that is EAR3, planned for higher density residential development. And to the south, across Manowar Boulevard, is the Glen Eagles neighborhood. And then to the opposite side of the interstate is the Hamburg Pavilion area. The subject property is located within an area termed Hamburg East, but within the comp plan review, this is part of expansion area 2A. the subject property is vacant and I apologize our aerials are out of date in this area because to the south the Costco warehouse structure was built within the last 18 months as well as a small gas station for that use but you the rest of the aerial is still accurate so to the north and to the east the rest of the Hamburg East area is still undeveloped Again, the subject property looking from Polo Club Boulevard towards where the existing Costco is located. This is a view looking towards the Greenway, which shares a property line with the ED property. Similar view towards the Greenway and the interstate. This is the existing development within the community center zone at the intersection there of Manowar and the interstate, Costco. And from the end of Fitzgerald Court, looking back towards Polo Club Boulevard, you can see this is a portion, or this includes the subject property. Just some site photos for you. The petitioner is proposing an expansion of the existing CC zone in order to develop a big box retail establishment, a mixed use building, as well as several outlots for commercial and civic uses. The total square footage, well, the applicant is proposing 161,400 square feet of non-residential development and 222,000 square feet of residential development with 150 dwelling units on this tract. In addition, the already approved Costco development with its gas station in two out lots totals another 171,656 square feet. So the total is upwards of 600,000 square feet in this proposed CC development. The current text of the zoning ordinance does not currently permit a second large retail establishment at this location unless it is a grocery store. But a companion text amendment has been filed that you will have a hearing on hopefully later today regarding modifications to that section of the zoning ordinance. In addition, a variance has been submitted in relation to this requested zone change. The staff distributed an exhibit, which is from the expansion area master plan. I'll just go ahead and show the area again. And that depicts Expansion Area 2A, and the subject property is located within an orange EAR3 spot down here. Thank you, Bill. I'll use mine. So the Expansion Area Master Plan was completed in 1996, and this portion of the master plan recommended expansion area residential three at this location with the CC zoning and TA overlay on the opposite side of Polo Club Boulevard. In 2009, there was a zone change that actually swapped those land uses so that the CC that we currently have developed at this location was flip-flopped or swapped between the two sides of Polo Club Boulevard. And that, along with a text amendment to permit more or larger retail establishments, has kind of put us where we are today. The 2013 comprehensive plan does focus more on general land use policies, such as land use compatibility, well-designed neighborhoods, improving a desirable community, and making the best use of land inside our urban service boundary in order to protect the surrounding rural areas. While this site is located within Expansion Area 2A, those ideas from the comprehensive plan are still appropriate. In the zone change that occurred in 2009, although the swapping occurred, the size of each zone proposed was generally consistent with this recommendation from the Expansion Area Master Plan. But when that land use change occurred, there was an inconsistency between the plan and what is occurring on the ground. The expansion area master plan does recommend the transition area to be located next to CC, but also next to residential. And it's meant to be sandwiched between a more intense use and a less intense use. In this case, there is no EAR3 adjacent to the subject property across Polo Club, but not adjacent. And so the piece that they have brought in today for rezoning is actually between two or higher intensity uses or zones. The CC zone is a higher intensity zone as well as the ED zone. So since the zone change swap, those planned land use relationships no longer exist. and that was one of the tenets of the applicant's reasoning or justification for why this is an appropriate zone change. Since the 2009 zone change, there was also a text amendment that was approved to allow the larger 50,000 square foot, excuse me, buildings larger than 50,000 square feet, and the appropriateness of the location was further questioned here. The TA overlay zone is intended to be the transition, and of course it cannot meet that here at this location anymore. The petitioner has also opined that the proposed CC zone will still allow for a mix of uses, similar to what Expansion Area 3 and the TA overlay do. Those uses that would appear in both zone categories include civic and community uses, churches, nursing homes, schools and child care establishments as well as residential uses the applicant also wants to wanted to make clear that residential uses would remain part of their plan with a mixed-use building in this case the staff when we reviewed it found that swap are increasing the CC zone at this location would not be a detriment to the whole community of place that's being established in this area. In this case, reducing the residential density and allowance for cultural and civic institutions on the west side may make way for a better shopping center development in this area. The staff does hope that the density on the east side of Polo Club is something that the applicant will consider increasing to the highest degree possible in order to offset some of the lost density on the west side of Polo Club with this zone change. In reviewing the application, the staff found that it was consistent with the land use policies of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. specifically that it contributes to employment opportunities for the community. The proposed land use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed land use will not impair the environmental conditions of the site. The existing utility and transportation networks can support the proposed zone change, and the proposed development will provide a more appropriate mix of land uses than previously planned. the staff recommended approval as well as the zoning committee three weeks ago for this requested zone change and I'd be happy to answer any questions about this. Questions for Ms. Wade? Not at this time. Thank you. Sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that is associated with the zone change request is Item C on page 3. It is 2014-68 Hamburg East, Lot 2. Here we have Polo Club Boulevard in this location intersecting with Manowar Boulevard at this location. Here we have I-75 bordering the property. This is the Costco area that is currently zoned CC with their outlots parking the building Fitzgerald Court, which is a public street in this location. The development plan that you see associated proposes the large 73,000 square foot building in this location with its associated parking. They have an outlot proposed here with a 15,000 square foot building, 8,200 at this outlot, and 8,200 proposed at this outlot. Now, as the CC expands into this area, they are proposing this to accommodate a civic use that would be one of the uses in your transition area that is encouraged. And that is a hope that that might happen. You can see they're proposing you have access off Fitzgerald with access points here, and there's one in the back which is for service vehicles and that sort of thing and kind of relief valve as well. They have a main entrance proposed here. They're also proposing an entrance at this location on Polo Club and then one here as well, and you can see that it comes in here. This is the building. It's over 278,000 square feet. It's a mixed-use building. This is the residential component. Although it's mixed-use with parking on the lower level and commercial, this is where they're proposing the 150 residential units to satisfy the required residential component of the CC. You can see through here, this is a drainage area, green space, floodplain. You can see the large amount of green space that they're proposing in this location. The plan was, of course, reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for approval subject to standard sign-offs for a preliminary. There are a couple of things that need to be addressed, one of which is provided whether or not the Planning Commission grants a waiver to the height of this building. They are proposing a five-story building. exceeds the height than the CC. And Mr. Emmons is going to address that with you after my presentation. Again, as I stated, it is a five-story residential component to satisfy that aspect of the CC. They will need to denote compliance with Article 23A21 of your ordinance at the time of the final development plan. That is merely a requirement in your expansion area that they address their own lot requirements. The expansion area was developed with no real lot requirements. It was, they were invited to come in and say, this is what we're going to do, this is how we're going to do it, and this is how big or small our lots are going to be, that sort of thing. So that's just a requirement that will have to be on the final. It will dictate their standards for their lotting, and it is our understanding they will intend to lot these off, and in fact, they do show us a preliminary lotting plan. They will also need to resolve the parking that's oriented to Polo Club Boulevard. And staff's concern is specifically in the outlot areas. When Costco was done, that was a concern as well. And they did the outlot development. And the parking all comes in and stops. And so you have a nice, you have a building and a front facade oriented to Polo Club. Staff believes that would be appropriate in these locations as well, and there's no real need to have parking or vehicular use areas oriented to Polo Club, but rather a good building facade, a nice landscaped orientation to Polo Club Boulevard. That is something we think can be fairly easily accomplished. It can also, they have plenty of surplus parking folks. If any number stands out on these plans, it's the amount of parking. They have a considerable amount of surplus parking being proposed on the property. We believe amending this area and adjusting that parking should not be difficult. We also have pointed out that they need to resolve compliance with the open space requirements under your expansion area. And there's a slight typo on your agenda. a nine was left out, but that's your open space requirement in the CC is 25%. They have the acreage. They've given us an exhibit. It's primarily through here that you can see that it meets. They're stating they have over 14 acres, 12 plus acres is what's required in open space. The interesting thing about your CC, it calls for open space, then it only further defines common open space and just general open space. So in your overall ordinance, vehicular use area and screening like this is not included in usable open space. But again, in the CC, they're just required to meet an open space figure, which they have given us an exhibit, and we do believe they have done that. Now, staff, going back to the parking issue, staff would anticipate some on the final development plan. we would be hopeful that we could see a nice orientation of this open space with the residential component, you know, tying it in together. And again, you can see they're proposing parking all back through here, and there's entrances into the building for the garage. We just think that could be worked with along with the open space to make that function a little bit better and complement and supplement the residential component of the plan. That was one reason, as Ms. Wade mentioned, I believe, we were very happy to see this residential component of the plan placed in this close relationship to this existing open space. There is another issue on your agenda, and we'll go back to this access point right here as the primary issue. there's a condition to resolve vehicular and pedestrian access into the property. The access points that were established on Polo Club Boulevard were established on a development plan for Polo Club Boulevard. And that was the only feature on that plan. That was not uncommon in the expansion area that your boulevards were subject to their own final development plan. It established this location for Fitzgerald at 800 feet, and then subsequently 500 feet. This plan was revised to meet that standard. Originally, they were at about 450 feet, and this access point was coming into here, and so you can see clearly they were forced to make a revision that has affected the layout. They do meet the 500-foot spacing. The issue, in order to fully resolve this, is based on, I think, what could be characterized as a big-picture, long-term issue. Our traffic engineering folks have concern about the development across the road and long-term development. And as Ms. Wade stated again, it is certainly our hope, and we think beneficial to the community, that we get a lot of good, dense development across Polo Cup Boulevard, which will, of course, increased demand, increased traffic onto Polo Club Boulevard. So the concern that has been expressed, and our staff traffic engineering staff will certainly elaborate on that with you, is about the future connection here. And if one is across the street, if a, and a light by the way, is intended to go here, and there's been money deposited for that very purpose with the government. If the traffic center goes here, obviously the spacing here would not be conducive to another traffic signal. So it's a long-term concern, I believe, that our traffic engineering folks have with this particular spacing. There was a lot of discussion about it possibly being a right in and right out, for instance. The pedestrian access, again, is related to the increased density that we hope to see across Polico Boulevard and the fact that we hope people can move in a pedestrian fashion across the boulevard into this area to avail themselves of the services that will be present in the location. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions, Mr. Martin? None. Tom, let me ask you this real quick. residential-wise. I think you mentioned 150 residential units was going to go there to satisfy the requirements for the CC. Does that include the requirements covering the Costco part? Yes, sir. It is now in an aggregate. There is over 554,000 square feet in that entire zone. And the residential is over 222,000. Very good. As far as access, I'm seeing one, two access places on Fitzgerald going into this new development. There's an access here and an access in the rear. The first one that you mentioned, does that go on out to that connection? Oh, I'm sorry. I was doing it right there. I apologize. It's on Fitzgerald. Okay. All right. Very good. It comes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Emmons seems to be in the wings waiting. I've got a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Tom, before you leave, you said that there's going to be a request for a variance for five stories for the residential part. Yes, sir. Does that mean that the retail will be limited to one floor and it will be residential all above that? Yes, sir. The proposal is for parking at the lowest level, commercial on the first floor, and then everything above would be residential. So there will be four floors of residential? Yes, sir. There will be. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Emmons, it's been a while since we've seen you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm going to present to you the requested variance. There is a single height variance that was requested with this application. The staff report is located in your notebooks directly behind the zoning report, and on the agenda, the staff recommendation is located in about the middle of page 3. The CC zone has a maximum height limit of 48 feet. The applicants have requested a height variance to allow them to build a 56-foot tall, five-story, mixed-use building. That is the last building that was just being discussed. The building is adjacent to the Greenway, and it is the Greenway to the north. I have an old-school PowerPoint, meaning pieces of paper, if we can flip through those really quickly. I will not belabor the point. Whenever you look at any type of variance request, the primary concern is to look at what are the unique circumstances that would justify the variance. Oh, if we can go back to that one real quick here. This is a looking at the mixed-use building, kind of where it's physically located. As I mentioned, it backs up to the greenway. There is about a 15-foot drop in elevation from about the front of the proposed mixed-use building until you get down to the creek. It's not uncommon with common cut and fill to see variance requests that are about half of the topography difference. We have a picture that Tracy showed you earlier that shows the greenway. It's hard to tell on a two-dimensional property, but the property does slope down to the creek, as you can imagine, and you can see the trees in the background. If we can switch to the next, there is a question about the proposed building itself. The applicants have proposed a conceptual elevation for this, and to kind of keep it consistent, I used green for the front of the building where they'll have the parking lot and the retail space at the ground level from the front of the building. As Tom was explaining, the rear of the building will have parking with the four floors of residential above it. If we can switch again. There were really two unique circumstances that the staff felt justified, the requested eight-foot height variance, the first one being the change in the topography, which is quite a common recommendation. The other thing that weighed heavily on the staff's recommendation is the fact that just across the greenway, that property is zoned ED, and the ED zone has a maximum height limit of 90 feet compared to the maximum height limit of 48 feet in the CC zone. The staff does not think that granting the limited variance that they're asking for, the extra eight feet of height along this boundary, we do not think that it would be against the intent of the zoning regulations, and it would definitely be a unique circumstance for the subject property. The staff is recommending approval of the subject property for the five reasons listed on your agenda and in the staff report. And that being that the staff could not find that there would be any adverse impacts on the subject property nor the character of the general vicinity if this were granted. And that we do not see that there would be any adverse impact on the health, safety, or welfare. We do see the unique circumstances which I had pointed out in my report and are recommending approval subject to three conditions, which are fairly standard conditions for variances in association with the zone change request. That concludes the staff presentation, not just on the variance, but I believe that is all of the staff presentations. If you have any questions for me or other members of the staff, we will be happy to answer those and will be available throughout your hearing. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any questions at this point? I don't see anywhere where it says this is contingent on us passing the ZODA or the text amendment. Is that just an assumption? As far as the variance? No, I'm talking about the whole plan. Oh, let me try. I'm going to try that. Mr. Penn, I think number 10 on the ZDP addresses that section, if I'm correct, Mr. Salley. Yes, that was one of the proposals, and we would anticipate a note on this plan, should it be approved by the commission, that would indicate that their compliance with this entire section, however it may go forward, would have to be demonstrated. So would that be on the bill? Yes, sir. And again, reviewed at the time of the final plan. Any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Emmons. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Mr. Nicholson and I are here on behalf of the applicant, AM Hamburg, LLC. Also here for the applicant is Matt Carter with Vision Engineers, Pat Madden, and Warren Witt with the applicant. What we're presenting today is a coordinated set of development approvals that will allow us, if successfully approved, to bring one of America's most admired and sought-after retailers to Lexington. There's now no secret anywhere, since it was front page above the fold in the Herald-Leader today, It's Cabela's. Cabela's is one of those retailers that most communities would like, and very few communities are able to entice, recruit, or whatever. They have looked at our community. They have identified this specific location, not as one of the locations where they might like to be, but as the location in Fayette County where they'd like to locate, and they've communicated that to us, which is why we have gone to the level of detail and effort we've gone to to try to tailor this in a way that works, that's consistent with the surrounding area impinging, frankly, on no one in any inappropriate way, and that works for the retailer. Key features, what the store would look like. It's not your normal large retail box that you're used to seeing, and they're built to look like a large hunting or fishing lodge. If you've ever been in one, it's a truly different experience on the inside. There is one in Louisville. There's one more recently opened in Bowling Green. This would be the third Kentucky location, and frankly, there might not be any others. Now, that's me observing from watching them, not anything that they have said to us. The site plan, I think the staff has really gone through key features of the site plan, but I just want to come up and show some of the important things that have been done. One of the significant things that this zone change and the accompanying site plan allow us to do is frankly to locate the retail that needs to be in here in a more appropriate location over here where it backs up to this wooded area that's somewhat of a ravine and away from the interstate. You may recall that the primary motivation for flipping this to the retail and the TA from the other side was to take what was going to be residential away from the interstate, yet because of the makeup, the required makeup of the TA and the CC zones, you still have to have a residential component. And so what we've finally done, there is going to be a residential component. We've got a prototype building to show you in a moment so you get some idea of what's envisioned for this area. But it's allowed us to take it away from the area where it originally was thought to go best, which is over by the interstate. As far as the parking issues up here that were mentioned, we're totally fine with where Tom is going. That can be resolved on final development plan. But that's the mode that he indicated was followed in the front of the Costco makes sense over here. I'll come back to this later. I will say that the intersection, which has been long planned for here as a full-blown intersection at the 500-foot location, is not just important for the success of the development. It's critical. We've been advised in no uncertain terms that a part of the model for this retailer is to have an access like that. I will tell you that it's not just there on one development plan. When Pat Madden actually built this at the city's request, he built it all the way over to Winchester Road at a significant cost, about $15 million. dollars as a part of that literally there was a lot of detailed discussion you could even call it negotiation that that resulted in the spacings along here that you see today so they weren't just included those spacings weren't just included in the the plan just for the road in the Costco plan there is also a note that refers back to the 2007 development plan related to the road that It says spacing here will be as is shown on the 2007 plan. So our position is not only is this what was agreed to a long time ago and reaffirmed at the Costco development when it was known that this was going to be not primarily residential but was going to be CCTA at that point. It also, for what it's worth, meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance about the spacing that we like to see along roads like this. And we can get into that a little bit more later. What I'm showing you now is a, I say it's a prototype building. This is a development of residential over retail that's near the University of Cincinnati that Warren and Pat have looked at and view as a good model for the type of residential that they anticipate building down here. And, of course, you heard there are still locations for civic and other kinds of uses in addition to that. the the height is not atypical from the four buildings of that construction that had been built in in lexington i think when the staff said they want to see more more density out there this is an example of going up instead of out i think we're on record as being in favor of that it is not so tall that it will stick out in any inappropriate way and as as jimmy has pointed out the ED that's a short distance away could have buildings as tall or significantly taller than that. So we agree with their recommendation on the variance. Obviously, we agree with the staff's recommendation. Just on the zone change, I just want to point out a couple of additional things. in the CC zone today and in the CC zone as fully developed. I pointed this out in my letter. You, in effect, already have a grocery store. You've got an electronics store. You've got a hardware store, a liquor store, a pet store. They just all happen to be under one roof. And that's one of the things that we explained at the time of the Costco zone change. With this addition, and again, if you've ever been inside of Cabela's, you'll know what I'm talking about. You'll have a fishing and hunting store. You'll have a hiking and camping store. You'll have an outdoor wear, an outdoor recreation store, and a small cafe. Again, under one roof. And you'll still have sites for freestanding restaurant, pubs, small shops, church, daycare, and so forth. So we believe that the staff is correct in recommending approval. I'll go back. I knew I shouldn't have switched mics. We believe the staff is correct in recommending approval for the zone change. and the one other thing that the staff pointed out that we pointed out in our letter, we're still able to accommodate much of what is anticipated in the TA zone, but we're not attempting to shoehorn a TA zone in a place that was never anticipated. If you look at the EAMP, everywhere else in the EAMP, It is a transition zone between more intense CC zones and less intense single-family zones. Once this was flipped and it found itself between an ED zone and a CC zone, there was really no, from a planning standpoint, there was no logical reason for it to be continued. So this is just a logical progression. I do want to be happy to answer questions. Really the only place that we've had any even slight disagreement with the staff on this is that access out front, whether it should be a right in, right out, or full-blown intersection. Obviously, as I've said before, we strongly believe it should be the latter and do not believe that there are any significant safety concerns associated with it for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is difference in peak times. If there's residential across the road, there certainly is not going to be any conflict at peak times in the morning in the a.m. traffic. And based on the – because Costco won't be open. I don't mean Costco. The Cabela's is not – does not generate traffic during that period of time. And frankly, their peak periods are during the day, not during p.m. rush hour either. So that's just another reason why we are committed to the full-blown intersection as is presented there. I would be happy. I guess we want to defer discussion of the text amendment until later. Is that correct? Even though they are obviously part and parcel. So I will simply pause now and request your approval of the development plan as presented and of the zone change application as presented and the variance as presented. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Thank you, Mr. Lear. Mr. Penn, do you have a question? Yeah. Mr. Lear, what's the timing on the residential part of it? is that going to be built when your final development plan comes in what's your intentions of the timing for the development for the residential part of it pat can can answer that or i can well as soon as i can put it together is the answer um i don't have it you know teed up so to speak right now. I've never done a development like that. I'm trying to find somebody to work with me and do it. But it is your intention. You realize we don't have a CC zone that has residential. I agree and I will do my best. It is my intention. I don't have it done at this time. Okay. But I'm working on it. I'd like for you to show us how to do CC right. I would love to assist. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Ms. Plumlee? Yes. What is an example of civic use for that building? It could be a library site. Some other, I guess it could be a fire station. I don't expect it to be. That's, you can run down your list of associations that are in that vein. Any one of a number of nonprofits would fall into that category. We don't have a specific list, but it's certainly at a point in time as that area develops out there, there's going to be demand for it. Ms. Mundy? You're talking about that access being a full-blown access in there directly, well, dog-legging a little bit into Cabela's. And I understand it's giving our traffic department some heartburn, and I can see that probably because you've got the other, what is it called, Fitzgerald Street there. I guess my question is, should that not become a right turn and it remain a full-blown entrance, is there a provision made for signalizing that spot? There's not currently, and I think that a decision to do that would be based upon what the traffic situation was as it evolved. If it didn't warrant it, now that's not a state highway, so you're not bound by the so-called warrants. But at this point, a lot depends on exactly what is developed and what intensity across the road and what the traffic counts end up being. And, you know, there's a lot of acreage and a lot of places across the road to space the residential development. So there's no guarantee at this point that you would even need a signal. So it probably would be wiser then to do a right in, right out. Well, it would, but if you did a right in, right out, the rest of this is a useless exercise. That's as plain as I can make it. They will not locate that facility there with the main entrance out front being a right in, right out. We've been so advised. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. How many jobs will this facility provide? Over 400. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'll kind of follow up with Ms. Mundy and see if traffic wants to weigh in on this at this time. Hey, you know, lots of discussion about the access point. And I think planning described our concerns with that full access point and the proximity to Fitzgerald Court. We would prefer to see it a right in, right out. we did discuss the option of doing a left in and restricting the left out and also restricting the straight movement. You know, that might be something to kind of meet both sides. I don't know if that's something Cabela's could live with or not. Let me ask this. Is it something that could be pushed to the final development stage? I'm going to defer that to the applicant because I think they really wanted the commission to make a finding on it. If I could, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. We'd like to go ahead and resolve that right now. It has been very clear with Cabela's that without the full intersection, this is a no-go. Even the word deal killer got thrown out there, which always gives me heartburn when I have to then turn around and tell our clients those words. Our issue pretty much is that, as Bill was saying, this has been a full intersection since Holo Club Boulevard was even thought about. On the very first development plan, it clearly showed it. I can go through them all if you would like, but there have been three since development plans that have come up. Each one of them all shows full intersections at this exact location. I mean, Pat Madden spent $15 million in relying on this exact location and full intersections. Every conversation he's had with basically any type of retail, any type of user, has come with the knowledge full well that this body has approved three different times an intersection that was full on this location. We would like to go ahead and resolve that today, since if it doesn't come to fruition, then we're probably not going to be coming back for a final development plan. That's kind of the dire position we've been put in, and apologies for kind of elaborating too long on your question. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. I hate being held hostage over a situation like this. You know, for me, what I see is, and I don't know, I'll reserve that just for a moment. What about others in the audience that want to speak, would like to speak on this? Anybody else? okay if not um miss cocker do you have anything else to add sure your last comment and i don't i don't want you to feel like you're held hostage one thing i would point out to you is in our zoning ordinance we've got spacing standards i mean this is not out of the blue and this is not coming simply from a a retailer collector street connector standards, the actual standard that's applicable is either 400 feet or 500 feet, depending on which one of the two you pick. Then there is a separate section for non-residential that has a formula, which I am advised says it has a, believe me, it's D equals 14 minus 1,000. I mean, it is a formula, but our engineers have told us this meets it. So it's not as if we're proposing something. It's not as if Pat Madden proposed something at odds with the governing documents. It's our position that we are consistent with those and we're consistent all the times when this has been shown as a full-blown intersection. And we're being very candid with you in the rest of the story related to this, because frankly that's how it's been told to us. I wouldn't want the commission to adopt this and then see this project go away and then have one of you all come up to me and say, well, why didn't you tell us that? I think that'd be worse. So we're telling you what we're telling you in all candor and good faith because that's the circumstances that we find ourselves in. Thank you, Mr. Lear. Mr. Penn, question? Yeah, while we've got traffic and Mr. Lear there at the same time, I don't want to miss this opportunity. If we go along with this and put that major intersection right there, then we develop across the road. And I'm talking to Mr. Madden here. But when we develop across the road, then you all are held hostage. to that. And so the holding hostage goes both ways here, or the way I see it. Now, if anybody thinks that's wrong, I want them to tell me. But I see that that way, Mr. Lear, that if we agree to the full hope there, then however the development plan comes in across the street, has to meet that. Am I wrong in that assumption? if you want to do a development in the way you normally do which is have the roads line up yes that but it's it's not k it's not cast in stone if if a concern arises that a full-blown intersection on the other side of the street causes problems there's a lot of ground to work with in terms of of where the access occurs across the road. But my rebuttal of that would be to you, there was a lot of ground to work here when we started. And we've got ourselves in this situation now, and I don't want to just prolong it. I mean, I want it to work, and if traffic has a concern it's not going to work, then I have to have a little bit of relief, you know, shoot me now or shoot me later. But the point being is I want to know across the road that we're going to try our best to make that work, not coming with a development plan that's where you've already got this one, now we'll worry about the other one. I think it has to work hand in glove here. All right, and the last thing I will say, and you always are going to have the last shot, but we did have a lot of ground on both sides of the road when we designed it immediately, and this is exactly where we put that full-blown intersection. One thing I think traffic engineering would kind of say is that Polo Club functions more as a minor arterial. So when we talk about spacing, you know, if Polo Club is classified as a collector, you can have one spacing, but how does it actually function and the width of it and the amount of traffic it's going to carry? And that's where we get concerned about those spacing. You know, we want to see the development work just like the rest of everyone. And we're not suggesting to remove that access point, but just restrict the full access of it. Thank you, Ms. Cocker. Ms. Richardson? Yes, I have a question. What is the timetable on putting the stoplight at Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, whatever it is? It is Fitzgerald. I don't have that answer. I mean, you're stopping the traffic. Within three years? Yeah. There's a note on the original development plan that the stoplight is supposed to be put into three years or the money that's been deposited by the developer has to be returned. I know you all know as well as I do, I don't think the city enjoys doing that, and so I have a feeling within three years that stoplight will be up. Thank you. Yes, it will be up. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I guess this is for Mr. Lear. We're talking about that intersection again. There's nothing to say that the residential part on the other side would ever connect to that intersection, right? I mean, if you were doing residential over there, you'd probably want to go to the existing stoplights so you don't have to signalize that other light. That's right. And we can commit today that we will not guarantee. I mean, that will be an open question at the time the residential develops. The opportunity to have it come out at the light is there, and the opportunity for it not to be a full-blown intersection on the other side is there. And Pat has just told me we can commit that it doesn't have to be if you don't think it ought to be at the time the residential comes in. That's where we are. And I think that's kind of traffic engineering. We would feel more comfortable if at this time that restriction was placed on that adjacent property, that they wouldn't have that access at that location, which for us ensures with more comfort that that location would not need a signal. And that's kind of our future concerns about the spacing is the potential, based on the volumes and the amount of developable area there, that will mandate a signal at that closed spacing. Yes, Ms. Mundy. And this may be for Mr. Lear, I'm not sure. And this is my ignorance coming out once again, I guess. how do we restrict a property that we're not reviewing at this time? We can't do that, right? We're not looking at it. Yeah, my statement simply is that if you decide, we're not sitting here today saying if you make this full-blown that there necessarily has to be a connection. That's all we're saying. Okay. Other questions? Mr. Penn? Yeah, I want you to understand my only reason for bringing that up is to be part of the minutes and part of the discussion. I just wanted that to be on the record and part of the discussion. I know I can't tie your hands. I wouldn't want to. But I don't want us to come back here a few years later. Those of us are gone, and that discussion never happened. That's my reason for doing that. I understand. Well, we can't develop across the road without a development plan. and the development plan will show where the points of access are proposed to be, and that will have to be approved by the commission at such time as it comes up. Thank you, Mr. Lear. With that, I would say that's probably your rebuttal as well. Anything else? No. Staff, anything as far as rebuttal? No. I'll move on and close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among commission members and subsequently a motion on this. Discussion? Comments? I'll make a quick comment. Obviously this isn't perfect. There's some questions to be had but I think it's an excellent addition to what we have there right now. I think Cabela's will be a solid addition to our economy, and pending other discussion, I'm ready to make a motion for approval. Any other discussion? Okay, so we have... We're close, folks. So, Mr. Brewer, was that a motion? I was giving other people a chance to talk, but I guess the two of us down here will go for it. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for approval of MARV 2014-13. I can include the variants now, correct? No, let's take them separately. Separate. Okay, so we do have a motion for approval of MARV 2014-14 and over townhouse. No, I'm sorry. I'm reading the wrong one. Let me get on the right page. MARV 2014-13 A&M Hamburg LLC. We do have a motion for approval and seconded by Mrs. Richardson. and I believe for the reasons provided by the staff. Discussion. Let me just say that, you know, my thoughts, the last thing I want to do is stop such a business from coming in. I don't think when this originally, and I go back many years as far as when that development started before anything was there, before we even changed the CC from one side of the road to the other to allow Costco. I didn't envision, I don't know if anyone else did other than maybe Mr. Madden, that such two large retail stores would be there on that corner at that time. I do have a concern as far as the traffic. Obviously, the traffic's not there now, but when that does get fully built out, a left-hand turn in or out, I think, would be problematic, simply put. Those are my comments. I've got a concern about that. Any other discussion? If not? Yeah, Mike, just to go with what you're saying, I don't think any of us envisioned this a while back, But when you look at the possibility of having residential or other backing up to I-75 versus two big stores backing up to I-75, I think it's a better option. And the residential mixed-use plan that's there while Mr. Madden hadn't finalized the plans or has the partners there, I mean, if that's the intent, that looks much better suited further away from I-75 than it would have been otherwise. And I fully understand your concerns about traffic. God knows we've got enough traffic problems at certain intersections around Lexington, but I don't think we have the control over that right now. And so with the plan before us, I think it's a good one, and I think we should leave. Patrick, I agree heartily with particularly the first part of what you said. The second part, my concern is the traffic, and I think it would be problematic somewhere down the road. But like I said, just comments. Anything else? If not, I'll call for a vote. And we did get seconded. Yeah. Motion passes. Variants. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for approval of the variants associated with the previously approved MARV-2014-S13. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the variance MARV associated with MARV 2014-13 Reasons provided by the staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen Motion passes. And then the ZDP. Do I go for a hat trick? Sure. Alright. Mr. Chairman I go for approval of ZDP 2014-68 Now if it is the intent to have resolved at least in the way we request the issue on the intersection and the note which is i'm not sure we've gone down with 1006 to resolve particular access to words and particular if the motion is consistent with our position Okay. Let me ask any comments from legal or staff on that. No? Are they discussing? Okay. Okay. All right. I'll revise my motion for approval of ZDP 2014-68 with one correction, note 9, remove and vehicular. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2014-68 with the one revision to number nine. Any questions? Mr. Penn? No? You're good? Okay. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. move to page three and over townhouse partners pllc carol doug charles zoning map amendment and williams property lot one zoning development plan that's mar 2014-14 there is an associated Okay. We'll take a brief five-minute recess as they're setting up. 3,400 Todd's Road. It's approximately 3.7 acres, and it is... Can I grab the door? Thank you. it's located between the Andover Baptist Church, which is to the northwest, and the Andover Golf Country Club to the southeast. The golf club also has the whole right across the street, or right across Todd's Road from the subject property, and then the rest of the area is single-family residential in development. So the Andover Woods subdivision is directly to the southwest, and that was originally part of the Williams property, which is, this is the, I guess, a third of what was a 12-acre tract. So the Andover Green Stub Street stubs into the subject property at the rear. that was constructed or rezoned in 1997, and then that small piece of the Andover subdivision was built out in 1999 and 2000. The rest of the area is, I guess, a few other single-family residential neighborhoods, but it does have a mixture of different zoning categories. R1D is the most prominent zoning category, but across Todd's Road we also have R1E and R3, but again all single-family residential. There are a few tracks of AU that still remain in the area associated with the church to the northwest, and then parts of the golf course are still in AU zoning as well. This is a larger aerial just to kind of show the general vicinity of where the subject property is located. And you'll notice Manowar Boulevard is further to the north of the subject property. So in this photo, south is up and north is down. But the Andover Forest Drive does create a loop. So it intersects with Todd's Road here as well. It continues through the Andover Forest neighborhood or Andover Hill neighborhood and then connects again with Todd's Road further to the south. This is a view of the subject property from the existing Andover neighborhood with the sub-street of Andover Green. And again, looking towards Todd's Road. So that was the sub-street just a few feet above. I took this photo looking towards the golf course on the other side of Todd's Road. So it's vacant. from Todd's Road. This is the subject property. Currently has a single-family residence on it. And then the existing Todd's Road corridor, this is a view from McFarland Lane, which is across from the Country Club. It's being closed in the near future, but it does still have pavement there. You'll notice Todd's Road is a two-lane rural section here. There's no curbs or gutters, or sidewalks, but Todd's Road is in the process of being widened and improved with those improvements, that is gutters, sidewalks, curbing. And you'll also notice that Todd's Road has a hill as you look towards Manowar Boulevard in this view, and that is something, again, the vertical and the horizontal curves are being worked through with the widening project. I wanted to make sure that the planning commission could see some of the existing conditions of that area. The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property in order to develop a combination of 20 townhouses and also duplexes. Again, they're categorized that way because some of them are two residential units together and some are four. This is a density proposed at 5.46 dwelling units per acre. The corollary development plan filed with the zone change does not depict a connection to the existing Stub Street. I'm going to point over here at the Andover Green Stub Street and the development plan. There's no connection from the existing neighborhood to the subject property. They're proposing their connection onto Todd's Road instead. The Williams property, as I mentioned, was rezoned in 1997. That was a rezoning from, at that point, an agricultural urban zone to the R1D zoning. At that time, the subject property was 12 acres, and I'm going to point at this graphic over here. they showed 33 lots being developed or being proposed at that time with keeping lot 34, the existing single-family residence that still remains there today, as undeveloped. With that proposed rezoning at the time, the development plan did restrict future access to Todd's Road with a note that I know you can't read it, so I'm going to read it to you. at the time of further subdivision of Lot 34, which again is the subject property today, access to Todd's Road shall cease and access shall be provided by local street stub provided to this property. And now we know that as that property is developed, it was renamed Andover Green as the Stub Street. In terms of the comprehensive plan in this area, the 2013 comprehensive plan does have several goals and objectives that are applicable. specifically four that the staff mentions in the staff report, and I'm going to go ahead and highlight those. Theme A has to do with housing, and that one recommends growing successful neighborhoods through expanding housing choices that address market needs for all residents. Second, encourage infill development throughout the urban service area boundary as a strategic component of growth. Third, providing well-designed neighborhoods that are connected for all modes of transportation. And fourth, working to achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system for the community. So again, the staff reviewed this proposal with those goals and objectives in mind. And it was clear that the applicant met at least two of those goals, dealing with a variety of housing. They're providing townhouses in an area that is all single family. So that provides a variety available to this area of the community. And then second, that they're providing a development that's at a higher density than the adjoining neighborhood, which supports infill and helps to balance, again, our urban-rural demands. And as that goal states, is a strategic component of growth. So we have to increase our density inside the urban service area, in order to protect our rural service areas. The petitioner did state in their justification that they were meeting the goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan, and the staff partially agrees, but also that the existing R1D zone was inappropriate, but the proposed R4 zone was appropriate. And while the staff does agree that they're in substantial compliance with the 2013 comprehensive plan, and we as a staff didn't feel that the justification regarding appropriateness was true in this case. The existing R1D zoning can accommodate development of the subject property in a manner that is still compatible with the adjoining neighborhood and as it was planned in 1997. So that's not really a justification the staff could support. One aspect of the proposal that doesn't meet the comprehensive plan goals and objectives has to do with the connectivity for all modes of transportation and creating an effective comprehensive transportation system. The proposal is contrary to the previous planned process, which I mentioned, that establishes a local street network and connects to the adjoining subdivision. So the staff also wanted to clarify that the Todd's Road widening project will, of course, help in some aspects of this area in terms of reducing the vertical and horizontal curves that are currently an issue in this area. and will also provide for sidewalks and curbs and gutters, which will be a nice improvement for the vicinity. But the widening project will also likely increase traffic speeds, and these changes could make egress and ingress more difficult along Todd's Road than it currently is for the subject property. So the staff believes that the petitioner's development can meet the goals and objectives mentioned already. if the modifications are made to the development plan related to connectivity to the adjoining neighborhood through the existing street stub. So utilizing the existing street network would be safer and will promote more social interaction and will create a sense of place and security as recommended by the comprehensive plan in Chapter 3, which is called Growing Successful Neighborhoods. The staff also, since the applicant only slightly modified their development plan and did not provide a connection to Andover Green as recommended by the comprehensive plan and the staff and as required by the subdivision regulations. Since that was not provided by the applicant, the staff wanted to provide to the Planning Commission additional information from the comprehensive plan related to connectivity, related to this application, and how the comprehensive plan does emphasize, since we don't have the density recommendation and we don't have the color on the map anymore, the land use policies become much more important. And so this exhibit identifies locations and pages in the comprehensive plan that discuss the connectivity and how important that can be. So the staff does recommend approval of the rezoning request, and I believe the zoning committee also reviewed this and recommended approval. There are four findings listed there related to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. and contingent upon the discussion about the development plan, a few of those might need to be reworked or deleted in order to move this proposal forward to the council. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Questions? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, Tracy, did you mention that McFarland was going to be closed? Where would that be on the map? It is. I will use my pointer here and show you the subject property here. And just across from its corner, its, I guess, southeast corner, is McFarland Lane. And McFarland Lane had historically been accessed for several really smaller farm tracks, including this piece and then a larger track to the rear. I'll show you on our larger menu here. So this is McFarland Lane, and it is still listed. It provided access also to the Forker property, which is now being developed to the rear of, this is Brighton East, and it's connecting to Andover, or excuse me, Autumn Ridge on this side. So that access is no longer necessary since these parcels have developed, or are developing. Other questions? If not, thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin is coming forward. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is on page four of your agenda, item B. However, you will find at your seat a yellow piece of paper, a nice pretty bright yellow piece of paper with revised conditions that staff has provided to you based on the revised plan that you see before you today. As Ms. Wade explained, this is a remnant tract of land, 3.6 net acres. It is fronted here on Todd's Road. Here is the Andover Clubhouse and Pool area at this location, and here is the church that adjoins the property in this location, and, of course, Andover Green, the Stub Street at this location, at the rear of the property. They are proposing an access onto Todd's Road to serve the property, and here's their internal layout for the 20 units that they are proposing. These are 22-bedroom units. Now, they are intending to subdivide these and sell them fee simple. That was the ultimate intention for this development. You can see that they are also proposing gated access over into the parking lot for the clubhouse area as well. this plan has been reviewed and has been recommended by approval by your subdivision committee and the staff as well with some standard sign-offs and they've cleaned up a lot of issues that initially gave us some concern on the plan one of which was the nature of the development itself and whether they intended to subdivide it and could they meet the setbacks and the plotting requirements of the R1T zone or the R2 zone as applicable to this development. One item that we just discussed with the applicant recently is when you're next to the AU, the more restrictive setback applies. They're going to have to adjust this on this side and move these units in a few more feet to meet that requirement. two discussion items and they are serious discussion items and we have handouts that relate to one of those and that is a waiver request that has been distributed to the Planning Commission and then the Todd's Road access which of course is a serious discussion that Miss Wade touched on and the Todd's Road Road access was discussed at length, and the latest information that staff has that we can report to you is that the Todd's Road improvements will address the vertical site distance problem. The initial concern, and certainly at this time today, this access would not be allowed on Todd's Road because of that hill and the site distance problem. Now, the spacing between access points is good, and this will meet spacing. Now, in our conversations with traffic engineering, they would like to be able to possibly amend this some, just to be sure that that site distance does work relative to the new road. Although the vertical information, and they can certainly elaborate on that for you, and the client could too, should address the problem, it may still require some slight adjustment to the Todd's Road access. So that's one issue for the Todd's Road Ashu access. Much more importantly, I think from the staff's perspective, and what is the subject of your waiver request, is the termination of Andover Green. As Ms. Wade told you, connectivity is just incredibly important in our vision of our community and how it will function. The applicant has requested a waiver of that, wanting that to remain a Stub Street, as you see on the plan, into the property. They have not offered any justification under Article 1-5 of your subdivision regulations, And that states that to grant a waiver of this nature under hardship, it requires that there be an exceptionally unique topographic or other natural or man-made physical condition encountered on the particular land. The justification that they gave us is neighborhood opposition to the zone change. Well, as you all are well aware, opposition to a zone change is not a unique circumstance in and of itself in virtually any zone change case. In addition to the lack of a justification, they haven't offered, for instance, a termination. and by the way all streets that are stubbed are intended either to go through and connect or they have to be terminated with a cul-de-sac. Now there have been several requests approved by this body where streets such as this have been terminated in the property with a modified access and a gate and pavement and that sort of thing. And what that has allowed And those circumstances has allowed access by emergency vehicles, service vehicles, and residents. And they have even been gated so that it is restricted just to residents and obviously those service vehicles who have access to the gate. But we haven't even received a modified proposal in that regard for this. based on that lack and based on the fact that they've given no justification under your subdivision regulations for a waiver, we are recommending disapproval of the waiver. And furthermore, as a condition on the plan, as you can see on the yellow sheet, we have a condition that says that they need to add the cul-de-sac at the termination of Andover Green on this plan. One smaller item, which you also are being asked to consider today, is on the white sheet that was distributed to you. And that is a finding for an access easement. As staff explained to you earlier, the intent is to subdivide these fee simple, and they are going to utilize that interior system as an access easement to provide primary access and the lot frontages for these properties. And again, that's not an unusual circumstance in a townhouse development or a group presidential development as well, that you have an access easement internal to the property. And it will be governed by a final plan as well. So staff is recommending approval of the Planning Commission making a finding that the access easement is appropriate in this circumstance. And again, just to reiterate, we are recommending approval of the plan as well, subject to the conditions that you see before you, including the addition of the cul-de-sac at the end of Andover Green. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Mr. Brewer. Go ahead. Tom, back on the yellow sheet, number nine now, addition to the cul-de-sac, a termination of Andover Green. Can you show me, I guess, where you're intending that to be and how that increases connectivity? Well, the cul-de-sac would end here, and it would allow these folks access and therefore connectivity. Take away those two condos. Yeah, they would have to relocate them on the property if they decided to maintain those number of units, which can be done in staff's opinion. They could also modify the cul-de-sac. They didn't request that. They could come in. A gate or something like that. Yes, sir, which has been done in multifamily particularly. And most recently, I believe, off Simpson Avenue for that multifamily development, that street was actually closed and terminated in private property. A turnaround was provided for residents as well as access for emergency and service vehicles. Okay, thanks. I'm sorry, I got out of order. Mr. Berkeley? Tom, my question deals with the waiver, should we go that far. The picture that was up early on, am I not correct? there's a pretty significant elevation difference between the green and the property here. There's, if you look at the topos here. And over green where it terminates right now. I think he's talking about the termination. Oh, termination? Yeah, there's a pretty significant elevation change right there. It looked like on that picture. I don't know if we can. Yeah, that picture. There is an elevation change. Well, there is an elevation difference, yes, sir. And, of course, they will be grading the property in order to build building pads and put in infrastructure of the street. So, I mean, staff would anticipate a significant amount of grading, and that could be addressed. And, again, a modified design could also address issues such as topography. But what I'm asking, I guess, is the fact that we do have this elevation difference, is that something they could use to support their request? They could. They did not. Okay. Mr. Penn. Tom, didn't you point out that there's already going to be on their plan, there's already going to be an emergency entrance to come in there? I don't believe I would construe it as an emergency entrance. What is that gray area? But it is a gated access into the parking area and then just a full access to Todd's Road. Country Club? Through Country Club, yes, through the club area. Okay, but if it's gated, it means it's the same thing you're talking about on the other side. It's access to the park. Yes, sir. it would limit access to only those who had the ability to use it, and that could include emergency vehicles, yes. And it's 20 feet wide right through here. They would have to find their way through the area to get there. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, Tom, on this plan, are they, a lot of times when you develop near a road, you have to bring your frontage up to curb, gutter, and sidewalk? Is that being required here? On the access easement? No, on Todd's Road. I believe what will be done is what the state designs through there, and I'm not aware that curb, gutter, and sidewalk is a part of that particular design. Okay, so. Traffic may be able to answer that for you. I've not seen that on the cross-section that I've seen. But we have a regulation that says that when you develop next to a substandard street, I guess, that you have to upgrade that during the frontage of your property. So they're not being asked to do that. The state is widening that. The state is. So this applicant doesn't have to do that. Ms. White's nodding her head. The cross sections do include curb, gutter, and sidewalks. It's the continuation of the improvements that were made at the intersection of Manowar up to Andover Forest. So they do include sidewalks. Okay. Who's required to do it? The state is doing it. Okay, so this applicant at this point doesn't have to do it. Correct. Mr. Cravens, let me go ahead and clarify the history. This is a state route, and all during the development of this area, there were improvements required at the intersections, but not for the full frontage. Right-of-way was obtained. But again, when we have an active project like that, it is always deferred to the active public project. Other questions? Mr. Martin, let me ask this. If you're recommending a cul-de-sac at the termination of Andover Green, will it connect to any of the internal roadway for this development? It could, and we would certainly hope that they would avail themselves of that access. Okay. Okay, and the benefit, you know, to me, it seems like with Andover Green, it's a, you know, long way back through the subdivision to either leave that development or come in. It just seems like a very awkward way to try and get in and out of that development. It may well be. I don't know that that's an unusual circumstance in large parts of our community. And I understand we're always stressing connectivity. Other questions? If not, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Caley with the partners. And the audience is also the applicant, members of the Andover townhomes. I didn't know we were discussing waivers today. I think if you remember subdivision committee, it was discussed that it was too early, it being a zone change. So maybe a lot of these items that I didn't prepare for or submit, I might have had a chance to do so. With the revised conditions, we've gotten down to 7, 8, and 9. They all deal with access. Usually I'm up here with the neighborhood opposed to me. I think this time they talked to the neighborhood first, found out that the 33 residents that are on the Andover Woods and the Andover Green Loop did not want street connection. So that is the plan that we have filed. That may not meet the ordinance as far as one of those three cardinal truths of why you can ask for a waiver, but it certainly is in keeping with what the adjoining neighbors are asking for. So we'll get back to that. That is the big discussion. We have offered up some conditional zoning restrictions ourselves on the revised plan, and this was to also further put the neighbor's mind at ease. This is going to an R4 zone. It's known for its density. So we have added to the plan a note, conditional zoning restrictions, that residential units will be restricted to single-family detached homes, duplexes, townhomes, or condominiums. Apartments are not permitted. We are five and a half units per acre. It is dense, but this is a townhome development. We do have some duplexes at the moment. As we get to a final product against the zone change, as we get to a final product that we're going to build, have more accurate footprints of these units. but that is to alleviate anyone's concerns that the old bait and switch is going to go away and our forward product of much more height and density will come in. Back to the access points. Todd's Road, we are basing everything on the construction plans for the improvements. We have site distance in both directions. We have distance to the intersections. We feel that that will be a safe intersection. The new road is three lanes. There's that centered turn lane consistent through there. That should provide ample room for egress both directions. From the first plan we had, we've also talked with the fire department, made some changes to our access easement. They are now satisfied with what we're presenting. We took out the medians down through most of that through the entry area so that if they need to have a truck get in there, it can sit, It can open up the outrigs, and it can also leave out through the Andover Golf Course parking lot area as that secondary emergency point. So as far as the safety concerns go, we believe we've met them on Todd's Road, and we're providing a second way out of this development. Again, we're looking at 20 townhomes, five and a half units, but it's not that dense. The area is the Andover Golf Course. These townhomes are geared towards Andover Golf Course members. The Andover Green connection, there is about a five or six foot difference in elevation as you see there. We don't know what the grading plans will be yet. You haven't approved us to start the construction process. Let's back up. The note on the old subdivision plan, development plan, at that time it was a who said that Andover Greenwood continue. That developer is no longer involved. The owner has, ownership's changed hands several times with the development plan we have in front of you. We're not including that note. We feel that that does not apply to this use anymore. These 33 homes on Andover Woods and Green have essentially had that quiet circle of theirs for probably the last 10 years. They've become very accustomed with it. They don't want to see the connection. The fire trucks, the fire department has said that the way we're providing our access points shown here meets their safety needs. And let me put one thing up on the overhead, if I may. There we go. This is four or five different neighborhoods, all pretty much known as Andover. You can see the blue star in the middle. That is our site on Tides Road. South of there and north of there, both directions, is the golf course. We're right on the golf course country club, the clubhouse, the pool. All the facilities are there. That's our client base. Having access to the clubhouse is important. Having access to Todd's Road is important for the development and the visibility and getting people in and out of this area. You can see that the rest of the neighborhoods, all associated with this, have ample connection. and we have three access points out to Todd's Road in both directions, plus access ways to Man O' War. The fire department is located at Maple Leaf Drive and Dabney Drive. They can access Andover Green, Andover Woods Lane, from essentially the rear of our property through the existing streets now. That's the closest route for them. need be to get north, they have two access points that will get them out to Ties Road and further north on either Autumn Ridge or Andover Forest Drive. Safety-wise, I think we've met it 20 units, all a tight-knit group, one development of townhomes next to the country club. We don't think we need to connect Andover Green. Those residents do not want it. and if you have any questions for me or the developers, we're happy to try to answer them. Questions? Mr. Drake? What does the, or how does the proposed cul-de-sac affect your revenue base? How many units will you lose, and how will that affect the price of the remainder? I haven't laid that out yet. So seeing the condition today that, you know, they would approve this, provided I put on a cul-de-sac, that would give me two weeks to come up with a brand new layout and show a cul-de-sac. Typical cul-de-sac you can see at the end of there would eliminate one entire building, so that's four units. So four out of 20, you know, you lose a fifth of your revenue. Is your project still feasible then? that's not a question for me i don't know luckily i don't have to follow the monies of this other questions thank you yes do you know when this may be a question for someone else now that that street clearly based on the picture we saw it's dead in now yes um what um provisions have been made for turning around a garbage truck or a fire truck now. Do you have any thoughts on that or ID on that? I know that Stubbs is only 140 feet from the intersection to the end of property. So it's the last two houses. I don't think any truck, I mean this is a complete street loop. So there's, you know, the worst they'd have to do is back up one lot to pick up the trash. Other questions? Mr. K. Let me follow up on that with the picture that was shown a moment ago as far as showing that Stub Street. Where's the property line? Where's your property line? Was it the fence or is it closer to the Stub Street or do you know? Property line should be the fence on the top of the hill. They had a fence at the end of the road. I think that's where the notification sign was. And then there was four plank fence. Yeah, four plank fence and the pine trees are all on our subject property, the Ginter property. So your property line is a fence, is what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. All right. Other questions? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you. Others that would like to speak on this? I think I was coming by myself. Hold on. Hold on one second. Let me ask this. Are you representing a fair amount of these other participants or who else? Everybody stand up, man. So, okay. Not this side. That's obvious. Thank you. Others that would like to speak or are you going to be speaking for them? Do you want to speak for them? Okay, a couple others. Go ahead, sir. Okay. My name is Ryan Fennell. I'm the president of the Andover Hills Neighborhood Association, and we're here really to oppose the addition onto Andover Green for various reasons. First of all, I'm kind of offended by the staff saying that neighborhoods or existing tenants being opposed is not really significant to us, And I hope that the commission would at least respect our word a little more than just the numbers, so to speak. We have a problem with traffic in the neighborhood now. And on numerous occasions, we have come to the city, to the police, to traffic engineering, and asked for help and haven't really gotten a lot. And now we're looking at you adding more traffic to our neighborhood. And so we're pretty much opposed to that. It's obviously the developer and the existing neighbors are for an exit onto Todd's Road. The staff is not. Your staff is not. So I think that probably kind of speaks for itself as to who's actually, I mean, we live there. So we feel like we should have some say in what's going on there. We've got how many names? We've got 100 names. We've got a 900 home development. and I can say that every one of them is concerned about traffic everywhere in our neighborhood and we're just opposed to adding more traffic. I know that we spoke about connectivity of the neighborhoods. Well, this new development, if it empties onto Andover Green instead of out onto Todd's Road, it will essentially be absorbed by our community but will not be part of our HOA, will not be part of our deed restrictions. It will be just an island unto itself. We feel like that's not really appropriate as well. They don't want to be part of us, and that's fine, and we don't necessarily need them to be part either. But if you're tacking them on to the end of us there and us have no say and they get to drive through all the time, we don't feel like that's appropriate. Anything you want to jump in here? Hold on. Yeah, we'll take everybody one at a time. Anything else? I'll take any questions you want to ask. Sure. Thank you. Questions? Let me try and clarify one thing. Your opposition is to the development or just to the connection on Dan O'Green? We have no problem with the development. We've all seen. They came to us first, which we appreciate significantly. They came to us, showed us what they wanted to do. It looks very nice. We think it's going to be a great addition to that area. and until the connectivity issue came up, we had no problem whatsoever. Okay. Okay, thank you. And in regards to, I don't know if you'd call it miscommunication, misunderstanding, or what, believe me, the staff and the commission think that you are significant. Well, came across a little flippant there. That might have been referring to, I don't know. And I will say one thing. The waiver or something. But the variance was, what was all the different, the connection or the different, there were three different things that you needed to get that variance. One of them was man-made. I submit to you 900 homeowners coming forward to say we don't want this. That might be a man-made obstacle that could get you that variance. Okay. Thank you, sir. Other. We understand. Others that would like to speak? My name is also Ryan, Ryan Gold. You need a microphone to go with you. I live here, sir. Take a microphone with you. I live here, so this has a huge impact on my property, my property value, and where my kids play. And no, they're not unsupervised in the street. They are simply children that play around. And if that road were to go through, I don't know how familiar you are with the area or of Forest Hill, not Andover Forest, as her picture showed. It's Forest Hill Drive that goes around. That road is really problematic. I wouldn't have bought there and didn't, and that's why we bought back here. Having a thoroughfare from Todd's Road would turn that into a Forest Hill. My understanding that the HOA has for years tried to get speed bumps put in. And it's such an issue. It's so noticeable. Luckily, though, that road's been touched on a lot here. It doesn't sound like it's going to go through. It shouldn't. I have over 100 names on a petition saying that is one of their problems with the development as a whole. Of those names, there's the reserve HOA president just across Todd's Road about the property as a whole being developed even, as well as one of the board members on the Andover Forest Homeowners Association and the entire Brighton East Homeowners Association. Their stake in it is the R4 zoning. Apparently, due to the footprint of a couple of the buildings, that's the way I understood it. they have to ask for R4 rather than R1T zoning. And it's good that they want to make provisions for that, whether it be a legal document or whatever, but I would ask that the property have covenants put on it saying R4 was given for this reason, for this purpose, but we are not to allow any high-density apartments, Section 8, et cetera, on it. And I think I speak for everyone else and the names on the petition when I say that. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? You can leave the petitions with Mr. Sally. Have them in the record. Yes, sir. Others? My wife and I have lived in that area for 17 and a half years. And when we first moved in, there was two entrances into the subdivision that did not go through. There are now four or five, depending on how you would count that. There's not a lot of traffic on Todd's Road because it's coming through our subdivision to get out through Dabney and through Maple Leaf. And we get the Carmite Theaters traffic. We get the morning traffic. We get the evening traffic. We get the fire engines. Every time they've opened up another entrance into our subdivision, that has been just more traffic that has come through and less that has gone on to Todd's Road. Okay. Your name, sir? Richard Ward. I'm sorry. No, that's fine. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Ward? Okay. Thank you. Let me ask this real quick. Others who has a concern as far as the connectivity would not like to see the street go through? Okay. Okay. So let me say this. We don't need 20 of you coming up here and telling us that then, okay? So anything else to add? Yes. My name is Elmer Craig, and I too live in a neighborhood. A recent newcomer. I've arrived here today with an open mind. We have luxury town homes throughout the area in Andover. And the information that I have from my July 10th description of what's being planned didn't bother me until I began to hear about the connectivity. The other issue that concerns me is the high-density zoning, and I see no reason for high-density zoning if it's going to be a luxury townhouse development. No one has mentioned school buses coming through that area, and directly adjacent to where this new connectivity, this new street would be placed. School buses come every day. We don't need more traffic coming through that area. Any questions for me? Thank you, sir. You bet. Others? Yes, please come forward. particularly if there's something new as for it other than connectivity maybe so uh i like what i've heard your name sir my name is james sutton i live in the affected area i'm mr craig's neighbor by the way uh i want to be known that i totally oppose the r4 zoning i know what the ramifications are even though it says there's only going to be 20 and uh when i first read that it was about the slight modification of the sub street. I think that's been addressed. I'm totally against that. One thing I might add from that entrance off of Forest Hill, there's no sign that says that that's a dead end. That's the only way in and the only way out. Those streets are small. They were never designed to carry extra traffic. And so that's one thing that I would like to add. It's a closed area. I moved there when my grandson was three, so he could play in the cul-de-sac. and everybody takes care of it. People just come in and out to live there. One thing I did find odd about this, and correspondence that I received from Andover Villas, one had a return address of 3450 Todd's Road. That's the golf and country club. I don't know if they're associated with it or not, but that's the return address. Also, one other thing that I received from them had an address of 2100 Liberty Road. That happens to be the Appalachian auto recovery business. That doesn't make sense to me. Why? I would have to see it myself. I mean, that's the correspondence that I received. This is where it traces back to. And one other thing. some years back that poverty was supposed to be developed for a daycare center. They were denied access to Todd's Road. And that's why that one didn't go through. And I don't know if they're going to get an access now or not, but they say they have three, but that's for a private residence and for the country club. A few things to ponder. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Others? Anyone else have anything to add? I have a slide. Members of the Planning Commission, me and my family have developed many properties. Excuse me, sir. Your name? Clay Waller. I live at 936 Andover Green. Thank you, Mr. Waller. And me and my family developed multiple properties around Lexington. And for the comprehension plan, it states that we need to have multiple units, and there are multiple units all around us. And depending on what the market, you can drive by each one of these, and you'll see a for rent sign or a for lease sign. That tells me that the market, there's still room, and that I think would be a great idea was to have the R1, to put single-family homes that will complement the homes on Andover Green and Andover Woods. And several of the neighbors of us have tried to contact the developers to try to just ask some general questions to them. And we've kind of been rejected by that. So that's why we're all here today in support of trying to stop this and also trying to stop the cut through. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walley. Anyone else? Yes, sir. My name is Scott Martin. I live on and over green as well. My concern is if we change it to R4 and, say, 10 years down the road, somebody decides to put apartments in there, that's what we don't want to begin with. Why does he need to change it if he can build the townhomes currently with what it's zoned currently? Okay. Anyone else? Mike, I got a question. Question? Yes. didn't you all offer a note on your plan that would restrict apartments? Okay. Okay. Anyone else? I didn't understand that exchange, please. There's a note on the plan that would restrict what can be built there, and Mr. Cayley can explain that. Yes, sir, if you want to come forward. We need you to come forward to the microphone. Real quick. I'm sorry. No, that's great, and I appreciate that gesture. The problem with that is if they were to change it to R4 with just that piece of paper saying we're not going to do this or that or the other, what happens when they decide they want to sell it, flip it, make more money, or just change their plans altogether? If they were to sell it, the next owner can do whatever he or she wants based on the R4 zoning. No, that would not be possible. We can get a clarification on that. That would be perfect. All right. Thank you. Yeah, Ms. Wade, hold on just one second. Anyone else? If not, we can move on. We need to follow up on that. Okay. Ms. Wade? Just for clarification for the neighborhood, the way when someone rezones a piece of property, and I'm sorry I have my back to you, but I wanted to speak into the microphone. When someone rezones a piece of property, they have the option to put forward conditional zoning restrictions, and those restrictions can limit the land use. So they can limit density, and they can limit the type of residential units that are built. Mr. Cayley suggested to restrict the use of the property to only single-family homes, either detached, which are similar to what you have, meaning they are not attached to each other, attached, which would be typically a townhome-style development or duplexes. He also suggested condominiums be listed there, and technically that's not really a land use. It's a way of conveying property, so I'm not sure that that's appropriate as a restriction. But the rest of the restriction he offered said no apartments. So when a conditional zoning restriction is attached to a piece of property, it cannot be changed unless someone comes in and goes through the zone change process again. Does that make sense? Okay. So even conveying the property to someone new, once a conditional zoning restriction is attached to the parcel, it's actually probably similar to a deed restriction. It's attached to the property, and it can only be changed through a significant effort by the property owner or an applicant. In terms of Mr. Cayley suggesting that they might have to lose units, can I put this on the overhead? He asked if I was doing his job. And can you maybe darken it a little? If the cul-de-sac is provided from Andover Green, first, I think the comprehensive plan suggests that it should be. Second, the subdivision regulations require some sort of termination rather than just a fence. So we have that. But I think there doesn't have to be a loss of density to have the cul-de-sac, to have an access easement for the rest of the property to maneuver, and then an access easement to the club. So I think there's a solution here. that can be met without losing density. And in fact, the staff in meeting with the applicant, they weren't opposed to this type of configuration. They were trying to appease the neighbors. So I understand that approach. Again, we've talked about balance. In providing a cul-de-sac, the individuals who live in this area, you could allow a gated access into the Andover Club. They could all exit onto Todd's Road through their Andover Club and not necessarily through the neighborhood if they so choose. But the staff thinks it is very important to have a connection. We don't support terminating streets in a fence. and a six-foot differential in the grade is something that is probably nominal in terms of grading the entire property. So I would offer that. Mr. Martin, did you have any other? I'm having trouble understanding the orientation. Is that Todd's Road on the right? Todd's Road would be on the top where it says easement. There was a setback easement. So the entrance would be from the top down? No. You turn right into the cul-de-sac? And over here is the bottom. So that doesn't address any homeowner's issues? Well. Thanks for the attempt, Ms. Wade. Right, I didn't have the use of a computer to do that, so sorry. We heard what we had asked for. Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Wade. I would offer this drawing was done prior to today's hearing. Okay. Mr. Kaley, rebuttal? I've got a question for you. Okay. Want to first? Go ahead. Hold on. It's for you, Mr. Kaley. My question to you is, if these are going to be so fee simple, and that's what I heard you say, that these, whatever you want to call them, townhouses, whatever, be sole fee simple. Each one would have its own deed. Right. What kind of restrictions can you put on those deeds to ensure that they don't become apartments? Is there anything you can do to that? Yeah, private deeds. Private deeds are restrictions for the developers to sell. I know there's other townhome complexes that require owner-occupied. Right. is that something you all would consider? I'm not trying to play let's make a deal here. I'm just trying to think how we can come to something that gives them some comfort and still allows you to go ahead with your project. Now, I'm not addressing the cul-de-sac right now. I'm talking about the deed restriction thing. Yes, they can do that with deed restrictions. That's not something that the Planning Commission has in their review, but, yeah, they can do that, and they're agreeable to do that. I'm just, I don't know how to make it be on the plant. I don't either. Okay. I thought maybe you could help me with that. No, I've been trying for a long time. I haven't gotten that one down yet. Thank you. Mr. Cayley, rebuttal. There's only 18 units up there. That's just the easy one. Well, I don't think I have a rebuttal for anything. I guess I want to do a little clarification of the R4. Lock coverage, floor area ratio, going dense as it is, the R4 gives you more options. R4, R3 zone, R1T zone, all of those let you build a townhome. But in the footprint of what we were doing, I wanted to make sure that we had the coverage and the floor area allowable within the zoning. So we went for the highest one, which was R4, knowing that's a zone you don't normally see. With the, however we go from this point on, if something like this is approved and voted on, I would hope that we could pass that down to a final development plan stage as opposed to me having to redesign the layout and get it certified in two weeks. At subdivision committee, I think zoning committee both, I think we talked about a lot of these kind of design issues could be worked out later. This is a zoning plan. We're simply trying to get the zone so that we can move forward with real designs. but otherwise we're in agreement with the neighbors i don't say that often for connection to ties road only and not andover green and we'd request your approval okay thank you mr martin i believe that it's necessary just i want to be very clear about several things staff is trying to express to the planning commission today and that is we believe they can maintain the density on this property with an access to handover grain okay that's that was the purpose of miss wade's layout it wasn't saying this should be the layout staff does believe they can they can meet the number of units they need on this property and furthermore as I stated in my waiver request or report, they could have offered a modified entrance with controls into this location and maintain their density, maintain connectivity for the purposes of public safety and public service, as well as serving residents. And I believe it's important to note, again, we're talking 20 units. Access to Todd's Road is acceptable under the improvements. And that was the point of explaining that the profile does show that that vertical problem should be addressed. So they can have primary access to Todd's Road. And there's no reason to assume folks would not want to use that as their primary access. And again, this type of some modified entrance and gated entrance, staff would like the opportunity to, in fact, evaluate that type of proposal. So I just wanted to be clear about what the point the staff was trying to make today for the Planning Commission about our concerns with the property. Mr. Martin, if I may, what you just said as far as a gated entrance, I do remember recently a terminated hammerhead-type cul-de-sac another part of town that did not provide the connectivity on through the development. Is that a possibility? A modified design, yes, sir, is always a possibility. This is actually a very different circumstance in staff's review, I mean, in our opinion, than the case you're referring to, although they both are connectivity. Yes, sir. Okay. Questions? Mr. Penn? No, I've already asked. Okay. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, along that, I mean, you could have had it. I mean, we haven't done any streets, left any streets dead-ended like that since I've been on here. I mean, they've always got some kind of termination, so you could terminate it with a hammerhead, but you wouldn't have to provide any kind of traffic to go through there. You just have to terminate the street that way. That's actually true, yes, sir. You could actually restrict access to that street and still terminate it. It's just a way to terminate a dead-end street that you just can't leave them that way. Yes, sir. Your regulations require it or else a waiver has to be granted. Okay. Others? Mr. Drake? Well, mine comes up just as a follow-up there. Is that property part of what we're discussing now? Is that any part of what we're voting on? Is it a hammerhead or something on Andover Green? The termination of a public street is required to meet your subdivision regulations, and that requires either some sort of cul-de-sac or a waiver of such, or they're connected to another street. I mean, that's... Right, but the property we're talking about, it's not Andover Green. Yes, it stubs into the property. It comes right up. The right-of-way comes right up to the property line, So it has to be terminated in conformance with subdivision regulations. But it does not have to connect. On this property. In other words, we could address your concern without connecting and then allay some of the concerns of the constituents. You actually could, yes, sir. That is a possibility. But all of that would have to be at the property expense of the current applicant. Yes. Yes, the current applicant would have to build whatever approved termination on their property, as do all developers. Again. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the applicant a question if he'd be willing to do that. Yes, sir. Any termination is on our property. Their side is right away. It's dedicated. houses are built. So any improvements that you're thinking about imposing here, hammerheads, cul-de-sacs, all that takes up our land on our development. And that in turn affects connectivity, yield, our layout. So that would be very onerous in the next two weeks. or we can just kill the street Mr. Kaley let me ask you this providing a condition to resolve the termination of the cul-de-sac with a hammerhead at final development plant is that doable postponing the waiver until the final development I mean I think they presented it that the waiver in your hands today to vote on. Yes. And for the voting of that termination. It kind of leaves us and all the residents up in the air until we come back with that next drawing is the problem. I guess it's up to you guys. You got to make it. wishes of the let me do this any other questions or I'm going to close this and we can have a discussion yes sir I'm Steve Snowden I'm one of the partners in the development of this come on to the microphone Mr. Snowden my name is Steve Snowden and I'm one of the partners in this development and it appears to me we've got a situation where we can understand you're talking about termination of the road. By the same fact, we've got a situation where obviously none of them want it, and we don't either. Andover Country Club has our blessings to use them as an access point to this property. They currently have tractor trailers that come in, so it's very easily accessible. That being said, with an entrance on Todd's Road, There is no problem for emergency vehicles to come through the property as it's designed from an entrance from Todd's Road and, if in effect, exit through and overcome the club. So I just want to clarify. The other question was about putting the ending in it. And when you put the ending in it, someone had asked, will people in this development go out the back? One of you guys said, yes. I said, obviously not. You wouldn't come all the way around to get back on Todd's Road when you would go out the front. It makes common sense. As to this development, the demand is strong for people from Andover Country Club. What we're trying to do is utilize the land in a classy way that would try to appease as many people as possible. It has a need. Most of these we're talking about will be single-level living. People want today, as we all know, want to live on one level. What this development really does is help service that need. Being said about putting a bullhead in it will affect the development of it. It definitely will because we only have 3.6 acres now. And our idea is not to crowd. I think if you look at the footprint on these, they're 50 by 60. Our idea is not to try to get as many as we can in one development. What our idea is, is to build a nice development that we all can be proud of. I'm one of the people that's going to be living there. So to address the questions about, I mean, really, if we think about this whole thing, I know it's an awkward situation. We're trying to piece the city with their connectors. We've got a neighborhood that's highly against it. We're against it. It all comes down to a judgment case for all of us, and we say, what's the right thing to do here? And I think it's pretty obvious. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Snowden. Mr. Penn? Mr. Snowden. Yes, sir. Would you not agree that our subdivision regulations don't let us leave a street the way it is now? Yes, sir, I would. Okay. Even though it's been left that way, but I would, yes. What would be your recommendation how we terminate that street? Well, I'm not sitting in your guys' shoes, but, you know, as I said, I think it's a situation we just have to take a common approach. You know, as I've heard before, you've had situations like this have been voted. It doesn't fit one of the three determinations that, Tom, I think you'd said. But, you know, sometime in life we have to sit down and say, what's the right thing to do here? Neighbors, I don't blame you. I understand. Mr. Snowden. Yes. Speak to us. I'm sorry. Well, I understand where they're coming from. You understand where we're coming from. And I guess, you know, what's my answer to it? They don't want it to go through there. If we put the bullhead in, what will it serve? Tell us what it will serve. What good is it going to do? We don't need it for fire. What's the bullhead? Talking about where you're talking about putting the ending in it, coming up in the property and putting the end that was on the last drawing. What is it really going to serve? Make a good basketball court. We'll make a good basketball court. We get them off the street. But, I mean, truthfully, if we look at it, what is that going to serve? If we're coming in from Todd's Road, we can exit through Andover. Okay. This road is here. They don't want it. What are we doing? Okay. What we're doing is following our regulations. I understand that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Snowden. All right. Thank you all. Any other questions? For clarification, Mr. Cayley, if you would. You spoke of, or Tracy did, conditional use restriction. Is there a note on the plan right now? Rory says there is. Okay. I didn't look at the notes to verify that. The staff. To ease some heartache, what does the conditional use restriction say? Oh. It has to be added with your report. Oh, excuse me. It is not on the face of the plan. Okay. It was suggested by Mr. Cayley to the staff last week. Okay. Mr. Cayley, do you have verbiage, language? It's here. Okay. This would include what the staff was comfortable with. Not necessarily suggesting that the restriction not include the language Mr. Cayley had about condominiums because we don't think that's appropriate. since it's a way of conveying property, not a use. And then once you say it's only these uses, you don't need to say no apartments. I think that's clear. Yeah. So the use of the subject property would be limited to single-family detached, single-family attached townhouse, or duplex dwelling units. Okay. So we're talking about that language down at the very bottom. Yes. Okay. And if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the development plan without a connection to Andover Green, you're going to have to strike two findings from the staff's recommendation because they aren't appropriate. And those two findings being which ones? C and D. Okay. Because they specifically refer to connectivity for all modes of transportation. Yeah, see those. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or motions. Discussions? Yes, ma'am. First of all, I'd like to say I'm pleased to see that, Rory, you and the developers have met with the neighborhood before you came down here to try to resolve some things. And I want to thank the neighborhood participants who came down and those of you who have diligently worked to get your petition done or whatever. That's part of the process. So I thank you for your time coming down here. Probably many of you have taken off from work and that sort of thing. And I thank you very much for coming down here. There are some things that we have to do based on our regulations and restrictions sometimes that may not feel so good for you, but there are things we're bound by by what we have to do. So, again, thank you so much for your input. Other discussions? I just asked Mr. Salley to put up on this screen something for clarification that neighbors kind of asked for. What we were talking about was a bullhead type termination, which is up on the top of that screen, just to let you know what we're talking about. Hammerhead, I'm sorry. I can be bullheaded at times. Any other discussion, Ms. Plumlee? I appreciate the neighbors coming down for their comments. and it's rare that we see neighbors and an applicant waltzing in holding hands in this case. And I just want you to know that we listen to what you say and we heed that. There are rules and regulations that we need to follow, but hopefully in this case we can work out something that's pleasant to both parties. Mr. Drake? Yes, in my poor eyesight, I can't read all the dimensions on those drawings. What is the distance between what I assume is the property line and the back line of the hammerhead? How much property does it eat up? That's what I'm asking. We can estimate that. I'm sorry, Bill, I thought it was on there and I just couldn't read it. It's not. I'm trying to... I'll say 50, 50. It's about 100 feet. Okay. Yeah, the right-of-way, what they have drawn in there to the back of curb, the right-of-way of that hammerhead is 50 feet wide and then 100 feet top to bottom. Typically, you have to have your utility strip and sidewalk outside of that, so you get yourself up to 120 top to bottom. And it depends where you can get your radius turned in, 75 to 80 feet left to right as you're looking at the hammerhead. You're talking about a minimum. 10,000 square feet of property. Good math. Yes. Other questions? Discussion items? Quarter of an acre. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Sorry. I'm struggling with this, but can you put up the picture that I think Rory, or perhaps it was one of the community members, I'm not sure, that showed the streets outlined around this property. I'm struggling with the balance of what we want to do by regulation of not having streets dead-ended as we see it dead-ended now. But when I looked at this, and I look at where this would perhaps connect to the back of the property, I see nothing that makes sense to me as far as connectivity. So if you're looking at it from reduction of traffic, I mean, I think you could argue that the same way. I don't know if I live in there. I think I would go a different route than trying to come out the back way to Forest Hill and all the way around. So I'm not sure that connectivity makes sense for either argument at this point, But I'm leaning toward if you're going to lose a small percentage of the property in order to fix the neighbor's concerns and address the regulations on the books, I think that's a relatively small concession to make to get this thing moving. And again, I like Frank's term. I don't want to do let's make a deal here. But that seemed like a logical deal to me. I think it's filed for utilities. Mr. Penn? I'm just trying to do some country math. I still think that's close to 5,000, not 10,000 square feet. No, it's 100 by 50. Yeah. Mr. Drake, do you have anything to add? I've got a question for council. what's the effect on the binding obligation of regulations? What if we ignore regulations? What do we do? I mean, where does that put us? Make a motion? Well, ignoring regulations is never a good idea. We've had that discussion before, I think, but I won't say anything else about that, but anyway, I mean, I think if you can find a way, you're going to have to have findings either way you go. So, you know, if you're going to, if you're not going to follow the regulations, you're going to have to have findings of why you're not going to do that. Just like you have findings if you are. So either, you know, I'm not saying, if you have the right findings, you're not necessarily going to be ignoring them. But you're going to have to have findings. You just can't change your mind with no reason to do that. Yeah, I understand. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? If not, we can go to a motion. Did I get a volunteer? Yeah, I'll take a shot. Turn your microphone on. I'll take a shot at this, I guess. I'm going to move approval of MAR 2014-14 for the findings provided by staff. Not yet. I'm doing this on change. The ones from the agenda. or the stricken through with the conditional zoning on the overhead? I think the conditional zoning could be applied to either set of the others. That's right. You want to add the conditional zoning. Do you want to strike through C&D or leave it as on the agenda? I didn't even want to make this motion, but nobody else. I mean, I think it relates to the development plan. Yeah, it does. Okay. Leave C&D. I'm going to leave C&D. Okay. Ms. Wade, for clarification, if we leave C&D, that speaks to connectivity. It does. Which means we're going that direction. Well, the intent would then be there would be some connection or some termination of Andover Green as per your subregs. If you'll wait for my next motion on the development plan. I'm going to give it a try. Yes, sir. Can I make a question before we second or do we need to wait? I'd like to second first. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval for the reasons listed by staff. Your question, Mr. Brewer? So if we go down this path, then we're leaving in C&D, which takes us down the path of regulation and connectivity or termination of some degree. Correct? So if we end up terminating in the hammerhead or something else that the developer feels is acceptable and the community feels is acceptable, we then have to have other findings to do that. Is that not correct? No. No. No. I don't think so because the ordinance talks about having connectivity, as I understand it, or terminating it in one of the ways that we showed you up there earlier. Is that right? So I don't think you have to have different findings, but you're going to have to have slightly different conditions on the development plan part of the approval. if that's where you're headed. So what was the situation then that I just misinterpreted? Because I thought you said pretty clearly you need findings one way or the other. You do, but you can use the findings that talk about connectivity or the proper termination under the regulation, which is these provisions that the staff has shown you, as opposed to just a dead-end street. I think that's what the staff is saying, but I would welcome them telling me differently if they feel differently. I said, I think you still have the same findings because of the regulation that talks about either having connectivity or the proper termination of a street as opposed to just a dead-end street, which these findings will address with the proper changes and the conditions for the development plan. Correct. But we're not there yet. C&D would not be appropriate findings on the chance that the commission would approve the development plan as it's proposed. Yes. Okay, but C&D would be appropriate if we were to approve the plan as amended with a hammerhead ending to that street? Yes, sir. we're heading in that direction. So we do have a motion on the floor for approval of MAR 2014-14 for the reasons listed by the staff. Any questions? I have another question, Mr. Chairman. The applicant stated earlier that he wasn't prepared or wasn't aware that we were going to be discussing waivers today. if in the interim, is there a procedure or process that he can make a request to alter today's decision? Yes, Mr. Drake. At the time of the final development plan, the petitioner could ask for additional waivers. This issue could possibly even be revisited at that time. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we do have a motion on the floor. I'm going to call for a motion and a second on the floor for approval. I'm going to call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next. Okay, Mr. Chairman, here's the rest of the story. I'm going to move approval of ZDP 2014-66, the revised staff recommendations, and deleting number seven and deleting number eight, the new number seven and the new number eight. And number nine can say, I'm going to leave that in addition to cul-de-sac at termination or hammerhead or it could be hammerhead or either way they want to do it. Okay. So we have a motion for approval of the ZDP 2014-66 with the revised conditions deleting number 7, deleting number 8, and making number 9 to resolve. Is that pretty much what you're saying with termination? Yeah, I mean, they could decide to do a cul-de-sac or a hammerhead. It doesn't matter. They just have to terminate the street some way. Okay. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? Is there any way that we can put something in this condition that would say that these are fee simple for sale? In other words, they wouldn't be rented? Because that's a real concern with that zone. Mr. Penn, I don't believe a government agency can restrict that because of fair housing laws. But I do think there are private deed restrictions that they can do and enforce themselves. Okay. So is the developer hearing this request, even though we can't put it on paper? Am I allowed to come up here? Okay. Clarification? Yes. Yes. And we're discussing trying to clarify Mr. Craven's motion. And addition of termination, you know, there's other ways, hammerhead, CO-DOSACs, if we rolled through and gated it. I would like to not see the word CO-DOSAC, but just a termination within regulations or something to that effect. Okay. Would you, I mean, we could move that to the final development plan if you want. Yeah. I mean, everything really is going to come out of the final development plan as well as that's the time when we show the single... I could change that to resolve. That final development plan. Is that okay? Resolve? No. At the final development plan? The issue may be that we have a final or a preliminary subdivision plan following this preliminary development plan in order to develop these fee simple lots. So we have to be sure we address it at the proper time on the proper plan. All of us trying to do is to just give the neighborhood some assurance that this will be addressed at the final development plan. Mr. Penn, if I could also add, the motion that's on the floor, I believe, from Mr. Craven would not necessarily require the cul-de-sac to connect, but rather that it be provided on the property to finish the street. That's right. In fact, I'm intending it doesn't connect. It's just a way to terminate where that blacktop ends. I don't think it should connect in through there anyway, other than if you just could jump a fence or something. But it's just a way to terminate the dead-end street, either cul-de-sac or whatever way you can come up with. Well, I believe what you're stating is that the applicant will not have access to the cul-de-sac. That's right. Correct. That's right. That confuses me completely. So I think if the intent is to comply with the regulations on the termination of Andover Green without connectivity, I think we need to state it that way and be clear. I pretty much stated it. I mean, we took out the ones where it said access to Andover Green and to go out Todd's Road. I mean, I'm fine with that. We're just terminating the streets, all I'm trying to say in this. And I've given them the option if they want to do a cul-de-sac or a hammerhead or anything that they can do to terminate it. There's probably infinite ways to do that. Mr. Cayley. Trying to clarify, your motion then would be that they would build some sort of termination on the subject property and then have zero access to it. Well, I didn't think you wanted access that way. Well, we don't. You said you didn't want to access that way. Well, I mean, if there's not going to be the access, grant the waiver. And everything stays as is and there's no access. I mean, if there's another way to do this, we could have a driveway connect through and put a gate up. Okay. So then, therefore, there's an emergency vehicle that could drive through. That wasn't what I was trying to do. I mean, if you want to do that, that's okay. But I was just trying to make it as easy as I could on everybody. is just to terminate that dead-end street. We haven't let one person in the last eight years I've been here, not one person's gotten by without terminating that street. Not one. Okay, we've got a motion on the floor. It has been seconded. Once again, we're deleting number seven, number eight. And you want to restate number nine? resolve the termination of Andover Green, I guess. But it has to be terminated in some way. Okay. Ms. Mundy, you seconded it? I did. You're okay? Okay. So the motion's on the floor for approval with revised conditions as stated. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Let me ask this. we have a findings for use of access easement. Do we need a motion for that of appropriateness? Those can be done at the next plan stage. As far as the waiver? Staff recommended disapproval of the waiver. We can go with that. We need a motion on that. I move disapproval of the waiver. Second. Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for disapproval of the waiver associated with CDP 2014-66. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, we understand this will not pop up on the screen. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you, everyone, for coming. At the present time, the zone change did pass. The development passed without the connectivity. I'll put it that way. Thank you. And we will move on. We're fast running out of time, but we may make it. Being page 5, item 4, Collar Properties, Zone Map Amendment, Chevy Chase Shop, Zoning Development Plan, MAR 2014-16. You do have revised conditions. That's on a pink sheet before you. way and over green Thank you. Thank you. 2014-16, and I left my pointer somewhere, so I'll move on without it. This is a zone change request by Collar Properties, LLC, to rezone three parcels on Euclid Avenue from a professional office, P1 zone, to a neighborhood business, B1 zone. And I apologize, I don't have the addresses in front of me. I'm going to walk over to the map and tell you what they are. 626, 630, and 634 Euclid Avenue. The subject property, then again, is comprised of these three parcels. It is along Euclid Avenue and at the intersection of Marquis Avenue. Just across Marquis is the recently rezoned Kroger Shopping Center for a redevelopment of the Kroger. Across Euclid, there are two lots that are P1. Down Euclid Avenue, the P1 zoning continues. And then if you come closer to Tates Creek Road, B1 is much more common in this area. The, let's see, Columbia Heights and Hollywood subdivisions are to the southwest, closer to UK. And then across Euclid Avenue is the Aylesford neighborhood. And you'll see a overlay for Aylesford in terms of an H1 on our zoning maps. The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to redevelop these three lots. Currently, they have three, what appears to be three single-family residential buildings. At least one of them is used for a professional office on the corner there. It's the Talbot accounting firm. And the other two, my understanding, are still single-family residential or multifamily residential use, but they're nonconforming. So looking down Euclid Avenue, this, excuse me, the corner lot is the professional office use. And then these next two dwellings are still in a residential use. And then as you move down Euclid Avenue, there are office buildings and other uses along Euclid Avenue. Just a view down the street towards, I guess, towards the northwest. The photo just kind of shows the current setbacks of those single-family residential structures. Across the street is a parking lot with one of our Art in Motion transit stops. And then this is a view looking down Euclid towards the Kroger Shopping Center in Tates Creek Corridor. The existing Kroger under development. And then this is a view of the sidewalk and street is Marquee. So looking from Euclid Avenue down Marquee. A little bit further down Marquee, there's a professional office is in the foreground of this one. And then the next building was rezoned for multifamily a few years back. And then this is a view down McCaw's Alley, which is along the rear of the subject properties. And that's the professional office building that's adjacent. So you can see it's about 12 feet, and it has been used by the adjoining these three residential structures for some time. That concludes my photos. The petitioner is proposing or originally proposed to develop a building that wasn't quite in character with the existing Euclid Avenue corridor, and the staff recommended postponement at our zoning committee three weeks ago. So they have since, or even before the committee, revised their plan, and now they are proposing a 10,000-square-foot building, which includes restaurants and retail, as well as an accessory drive-through and then obviously parking for those uses. The plan is much more in character now than it was as originally filed. The comprehensive plan in reference to this zone change, the staff reviewed the applicant's justification, and they noted that it met the 2013 comprehensive plan in terms of at least one goal and objective related to compact, contiguous, and sustainable development within the urban service area, which would accommodate future growth needs in order to uphold the urban service area concept. and they also noted in their justification that the proposed zoning is compatible with the immediately adjoining zoning. So it's on all sides P1 with the exception of the Kroger lot, which is B6P, so commercial in nature. They also mentioned in their justification that they felt it was in line with a small area plan that was completed in, let's see, 1991 called the Aylesford East University Small Area Plan as it related to non-residential development and providing accessible development in this area. The staff in reviewing their justification, although the small area plan was adopted by the Planning Commission, it was completed over 23 years ago. So not that it's not relevant, but it is in fact a bit dated so the The staff didn't use that as a finding as we move forward. But since the zoning committee, as I mentioned, they revised their development plan, and the staff reviewed again the comprehensive plan. The revised plan is more in keeping with the character of the corridor and does now meet our new B1 zone requirements. The staff would cite at least one other goal and objective that's relevant here. The comprehensive plan supports infill and redevelopment, which in some cases might lead to an intensification of land use, as suggested here. But the plan also states that infill and redevelopment should be context-sensitive to the surrounding environment whenever possible. Since the petitioner is not agreeing to a further postponement and work on their plan, the staff is recommending approval of the zone change because we believe they've addressed the major point of conflict as it relates to the zone change application, which was not meeting the B-1 requirements and proposing a development that was so out of character with the corridor. The staff is recommending approval then for the following reasons. And I would note there's a supplemental staff report that's in your notebook. So it's behind the main staff report. It's just a one-page brown sheet. And these findings are listed there. The proposed B-1 zone is in agreement with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan for three reasons. First, the plan recommends compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area to accommodate future growth and uphold the urban service area concept. The petitioner's development will be in keeping with the character of Euclid Avenue Corridor, which is a near-downtown commercial area and is pedestrian-friendly. The plan also recommends identifying opportunities for infill, redevelopment, and adaptive reuse that respect the area's context and design features when possible. And the petitioner is now desiring to redevelop the subject property, which is currently underutilized within the commercial corridor, and they propose a redevelopment that is sensitive to the surrounding properties and will improve the commercial corridor. And then lastly, the proposed B-1 is compatible with the immediately adjoining B-6P and B-1 zoning. Under the provisions of Article 6-7, the staff is suggesting some conditional zoning restrictions at this location, principally because some of the more intensive land uses permitted in B-1 may have a negative impact on the nearby neighborhoods in terms of noise and or congestion. So the staff suggests prohibiting, looks like eight uses, general uses, schools, funeral parlors, the medical dental office, clinic and laboratories, which are high traffic generators, liquor stores, automobile service stations, banquet facilities, cocktail lounges, nightclubs or bars, and live entertainment. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed zone change. Questions for Ms. Wayne? No? Yes? Yes, sir. Why the live entertainment exclusion? I think it's the congregation that happens with that and the possibility of it being an impact to the neighborhood in terms of noise. Other questions? If not, thank you, Ms. Wade. Okay. I'm going to also, we had several emails that were sent to us. I'm going to distribute those to you as well. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the preliminary development plan is on page 6, item B, ZDP 2014-65 Chevy Chase Shops. and staff has distributed for you a pink handout with some revised conditions on it addressing the revised plan that you see before you. As you can see here on the rendering, this is Euclid Avenue. Here is the intersection with Marquis. Of course, Kroger's is sitting right here under construction. This particular plan is proposing a 10,000-square-foot building in this location. There is access off Euclid, two-way access into the parking area with access onto McCall's Alley. They are proposing a drive-through in this location that will then enter into McCall's Alley and share that access point to Marquee. This is the third reiteration of this plan that staff has received and reviewed. And this is in response to concerns about orientation to Euclid, to marquee, as well as access points. At one point, the drive-thru, well, initially the building and the drive-thru were shown in a completely different configuration. Then the drive-thru was shown side-by-side with marquee, and that was very troublesome to staff, both planning and traffic, as to how that would function. So in response to those concerns, they are bringing the drive-through out here to McCall's Alley. That is also contingent upon improvements along McCall's Alley. And again, here's your dumpster location in this situation here. Obviously, you can see that with the drive-through and with stacking having to take place back through the parking lot, there are potential conflict points with the drive-through. This is the attempt of the applicant to meet those concerns to the best of their ability. The pink sheet that you have has several conditions, one of which the standard conditions on a primary development plan, but you can see number six is denote the building fenestration along Euclid Avenue be resolved at the time of a final development plan that arose out of design discussions we had with the applicant and concern about getting a nice design in an area such as this and of course we want it everywhere but that will deal with the window openings and that sort of thing we were really hoping to avoid just a real typical suburban style block building with a lot of glass in this area of our community in particular. So they have made several verbal presentations to your committees stating that they were willing to deal with that, and they too were looking forward to a well-designed building. The last condition, number seven, is one that arose out of an awful lot of discussions, A lot of review by your staff, literally several weeks for some of us, and then with a lot of concern with the neighborhood on how to interpret several aspects of your ordinance. And I believe you should have a handout that goes with it. Initially, they had a building that sat back beyond 20 feet off of Euclid Avenue and was up closer to Marquis. and staff was again concerned about that orientation and about the setbacks. B1 requires a build, a 10-foot line, and then a maximum build to at 20 feet. And that's a new regulation under your B1, and that's an attempt to help keep B1 neighborhood business oriented to the street and allow for that type of atmosphere to be created. Along with that, though, you also have side street, side yard requirements. and you have infill and redevelopment requirements that affect how these properties can be developed, and this is in the infill and redevelopment area. The ordinance allows an applicant on a corner lot to select their front yard and their side street side yard, and then it follows from there that you regulate accordingly. You can see on the handout that you were given that 15-64 Side Street Side Yard, and that's the second paragraph on the handout. And again, that is what impacts marquee, which they selected as their Side Street Side Yard. Staff met on several occasions. We also met with our legal department, and it was determined that this was a simple interpretation, and this was an appropriate setback and an appropriate orientation along Marquis. What was more problematic was the front yard setback, and that's the first paragraph of that handout that we have given you. The ordinance reads from a very specific legalistic point of view. It states that you will utilize averaging based on two lots adjoining the property. Well, interesting enough, as you can see, this is a corner lot. There's only one principal structure adjoining the property. It was discussed at length among staff, and there were differences of opinion, and we discussed it at length on several occasions, and we were able to meet with legal. And on your handout, you can see that it was determined that the intent of this infill and redevelopment setback setback was to ensure comparable and compatible setbacks, and therefore averaging would be appropriate in this situation for the front yard. Again, the standard is five feet within an average of that setback. Since there's only one lot, we determined that that setback on that adjoining lot is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 24 feet, and we felt like that 20 feet would certainly satisfy not only your underlying B1 zone requirements, but would meet the intent of 15-2A6, which is your infill setback that governs a business zone in an infill area. I know that sounds somewhat esoteric, and you can imagine staff went through this at length on several occasions and dealt with this interpretation. And as I said, we ultimately had the opportunity to meet with legal to discuss this as well. With that, staff is recommending approval based on the conditions that you see, including the need to increase the building setback along Euclid to 20 feet. I will briefly add, if I have not already, it is a 10,000 square foot building they're proposing. There are 26 parking spaces required, and that is exactly what they are proposing to provide on this property. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? So, Mr. Martin, you're recommending 20 feet as far as setback on Euclid? Your staff, yes, sir, is recommending. Okay. What is there right now? Right there is 10 feet. Okay. Yes, Ms. Mundy? The building next door, is it 20? this the immediately adjacent uh measuring it on art view yes it's somewhere around 23 24 feet okay that's what we determined so they'll be sort of lined up okay anything else any other questions if not applicant let me just say we're we're going to vacate this place in about 45 minutes so brevity is appreciated we want to hear from you though under understood um thank you mr chairman members of the commission. I'm John Talbot. I'm here today on behalf of Collar Properties. I want to apologize a little bit for my voice. I'm on the back end of a cold. By way of background, Collar Properties has been developing property in Fayette County and Chevy Chase in particular for the past 50 years. Among their more significant investments in Chevy Chase are the Chevy Chase Plaza. Since their acquisition, they put Grater's ice cream there, McAllister's Delicatessen. Across the street, They own what we call the Saratoga Center, which is where Tomo's is, Great Clips and others. Their offices, in fact, are there. The next building up the street where the Starbucks is at Ashland Plaza, they developed that and owned and managed it. The Main and Rose building down here on Main Street and Rose, the collars were heavily involved in the development of that property. Last, there was a corner of Mount Tabor and Richmond Road where the Verizon phone store is. It's another recent collar development. All these projects are attractive and successful. I think they're all probably 90% occupied. They also managed to own the, I'm forgetting Chevy Chase, the building's operated by Bourbon and Toulouse and Orms. We think this corner can be equally successful as a retail development. It's now in the shadow of the new Kroger store, as you just saw from those pictures. The Kroger wall is going to go all along the front of Marquise Avenue, literally in the shadow of it. We see this as being a place for a fitness opportunity, a GameStop, a restaurant, maybe some kind of takeout pizza. And that's a necessity for the drive-thru, essentially. With me today, I have Tony Barrett and Jason Taylor of Collar Properties. And Tony will talk about the development plan. We're trying to essentially have a walkable development that will serve the needs of the immediate folks. We agree with the staff's recommendations with a couple exceptions. The first one being that we don't see the need to eliminate medical and dental from this. We think that as property owners and managers we can work that out ourselves. We also don't see the need to eliminate liquor stores. The reason is this entire area has liquor stores from Liquor Barn Express, Rite Aid, Coliseum Liquors, numerous wine stores, wine and beer at the Super America. It doesn't do any good, even all the liquor and wine that's going to be sold by Kroger. So isolating this one spot with no liquor serves no real purpose. We are amenable to the staff's other recommendations on conditional zoning, and we propose a compromise on the setback to go to 15 feet rather than from our 10 feet that's shown. with that in the interest of brevity I'm going to let Tony talk about Mr. Barrett talk about the development plan unless you have any questions for me we'll we'll reserve them here we'll see what Mr. Barrett has to say Mr. Chairman members of the commission thank you a couple of things for John mentioned the 20-foot building line. I have a little concern with the nomenclature of the condition that it be 20 feet. The ordinance allows a 5-feet variance to that, and I would like to identify that as 15 feet being within that 5-foot separation. That enables us to develop the building in a fashion that we see our leasing going and it helped make the project a success. In working with traffic engineering, we've reconfigured the drive-through lane, and I think to their satisfaction, but one other issue that they expressed concern, and I'll save Casey the trip up here maybe, we agreed to eliminate the two parking spaces at our entrance, our first two spaces to give us a little more throat there off of Euclid Avenue. So we'll depict that on our plan. and then we've also showing a landscape buffer easement on the Ashland building and Graham and Graham Pohl and Ethan Buell are here and they can address this but I just wanted to make sure we made point of it. Behind their building is their parking and with the configuration of the of their existing parking, we're going to shift. We'll just basically eliminate the easement back here, and it'll be on our property at that point. So we'll kind of just massage that over a little bit and allow the easement to be, or the landscape buffer, to be on our property in that location. So that affects about three spaces on the right side and the back of our property. I just wanted to, when I bring in my preliminary development plan for certification. I wanted that to be understood. So with those modifications, we're in agreement with the staff's recommendations. Again, with just the exception to number seven, I would be more comfortable with a 15-foot building line on that. Changing from the 10, we propose to a 15. And I think that's consistent with the language in the Article 15-2A6. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Any questions for the applicant at this point? Mr. Barrett, let me just clarify one thing. You mentioned when you were talking about landscape buffer, you mentioned easement. You were talking about landscape buffer. Right, it's a landscape easement. Okay. Okay. All right. So it's both. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? A quick question. I normally don't ask this during a zone hearing, but with capacity assurance in this area sometimes been in question, have you been to the office and do you know about, is that available? Yes, we've been to the office and verified that sewer capacity is available. Have you already? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. and reserved. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, others that would like to speak? Anybody in favor of this plan? Favor? Half and half. Come forward. Just keep in mind we do have to get out of here. I understand. I've been waiting patiently for three hours. I appreciate that. My name is Ethan Buell, and I'm one of the owners of the 620 Ashland Building. and one concern I have is the drive-through part. I know that's a key part of their development. I had a marketing director that was injured coming off McCall Alley. It's a very dangerous intersection. She got the front end of her car torn off from a car coming from Euclid, a student. And that area needs to be developed in such a way that the parking or the driving there is going to have to be safer. And I want, if we could, possibly eliminate the parking across the street from Kroger. I think that's the west side of Marquee, so you can have good visibility up and down the street to come out of there. As part of this, I think that's really important. It's critical. The setback, five feet from the front of the building, whatever that may be. I know you want 15. My office happens to be on the third floor in the corner, and I can actually see the bank now, but once they move in, I may not be able to do that anymore. So I don't want to move any further through the front that we can, but that was the only comments I wanted to make. Thank you, sir. Others? Yes, please come forward quickly. At this point in time, either. I'm Mark Barker. I live on 439 Park Avenue. I'm in the notification area, and I'm the president of Columbia Heights Neighborhood Association. Let me give these. Just on the notification, I think the staff says 23 feet back was the building adjacent to it, so 23 minus 5 feet, that'd be 18 feet, I believe. So anything less than 18 feet it seems to me would violate, would require a variance and we've not, no one in the neighborhood has been notified of the variance. So I think it'd violate that notification requirement if it's less than 18 feet. On the next slide, this is the corner and it's a little dim, I don't know if you can, but this is the corner of the park and you could, this is a similar house that they proposed in a tear down that's been renovated into the animal clinic. From a neighborhood perspective, this would be the preferred use of this. A P1 that's been renovated and kept. I recognize that the current houses are in somewhat misshapes, but this is what most people would prefer on the site they're proposing. Next slide, please. This is Marquis Avenue at the corner of Marquis and Euclid. it's a narrow street people are allowed to park right now on this which I can't see how you can continue I think any more traffic on it is a real concern I especially with the Kroger coming on I think they're gonna add more traffic I think this is gonna be a problem I think we need to consider what kind of accidents going to happen here and public safety I don't think you can keep those cars parked on that side of that street and have a safe condition next slide please this is the alley towards Park Avenue there are houses right next to this alley they're about 10 feet away anything that increases traffic on the alley especially late at night like a liquor store or a bar would be horrible for this area absolutely horrible so anything like that would be that would have a tremendous adverse effect. So, next slide. This is the other side of the alley, right next to where they're proposing the drive-thru. As you see, the cars back out onto the alley, and so you're going to have drive-thru coming in right where they back out. You're going to have people coming both ways. There's a sidewalk where you have pedestrians actually going out into the alley to get to the parking. So I think the drive-thru is just a disaster. I can't imagine you actually going forward the drive-thru as it is. It's just a disaster. The next slide, please. Oh, yeah. I think Amy passed out the conditions that we proposed. There's some overlap in what was also asked for by the staff. I used verbiage instead of liquor and bars because I didn't see the definition in the zoning ordinance for liquors and bars. So if they are in the zoning ordinance, then that's just as good as them. one of the things I didn't see that I saw I put extended state hotels that wasn't on the list of and I specifically said refueling stations and I think they said service station so I don't know if service stations is the same as refueling station I think a gas station would be totally inappropriate on that corner I think again late anything late night it's going to be walking down And a lot of people walk that alley. A lot of people ride their bike on that alley. Late at night, people are up late at night. There's a lot of students in the area. Anything late at night in that drive-thru is a disaster. So we're opposing that. We want the drive-thru hours to be limited to 6 a.m. to midnight to avoid that possible negative impact. We're also concerned about the freestanding signs. We don't want a fast food looking development on site. And B1 allows 20 feet freestanding signs. And we think it's completely and totally inappropriate for Euclid Avenue corridor. So we're asking at least there be some restriction on freestanding signs. The other thing I would like for the people to consider is the marquee and what that facade is going to look like. It looks like to me there's no entrances on the site of Marquis, and we're concerned about the appearance of the facade on Marquis and how it's going to affect the streetscape. And I've got one more slide. Let me go get it real fast. Maybe it's in there. Maybe just. It's over. I'll just finish on the media. What happened? Is this what's going on? No, no, I don't. Oh. Well, this will work. Wait a second. That's the office. It's pretty narrow. The office, again, it's a little dark. But on the other side of that is another building. It used to be an office, but they converted it to an apartment complex. They just converted it. They spent $700,000 converting it. If you look at how this aligns, this goes right into the windows of that apartment complex. So late at night business, again, liquor stores, bars. that's going to have a very adverse effect on that apartment complex. There's a... I think I got one more. This was discussed with Mr. Collier and the applicant. I think this is a better design. It alleviates the conflict. to McCullough's Alley puts a strip of that you could use to kind of screen this development from the rest of the area. Something like this would be much better, in my opinion, than what's currently being proposed. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others? Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road. I was going to improvise, but usually that takes a long time, so I'm going to stay tight with the script here. I ask that you not recommend approval for this zone change. It does not seem to be in accord with the 2013 comprehensive plan. The present zoning is not inappropriate, and the major changes taking place in the area are by no means unanticipated in the 2013 plan, and I might add in the 1991 Aylesford small area plan, which had a lot of neighborhood input 25 years ago practically, to grant a zone change for this land at this location is to give incentive to exactly the kind of development that we can't afford in our constrained growth environment. We're talking about a one-story box on a parking lot with a drive-through. It's auto-intensive, cars-intensive, without really being people-intensive. It is largely without sensitivity to context and to neighborhood needs. It offers no housing density. There are four dwellings there now in an office that leased that much. And little high-wage employment. It doesn't offer affordability, and it's lacking in every environmental benefit. Our land is precious, and our neighborhood uses and traditions deserve your support and protection here. The proposed development, could I have the first image, please? Is surrounded by P1 zoning on three of its four sides. There's actually a tiny patch of residential remaining. It would break up a solid block front of professional offices along its block front, housing high-skilled, high-wage employment, including engineering, design. We have engineers here, veterinary medicine, finance, even our signature equine industry. This is jobs land that's especially well-suited to the university and those who settle nearby. It should be maintained. We don't want to lose sight of our professional land dedicated to professional uses in this urge to upzone altogether for intensity's sake. It cites work where people live. It fosters collaboration between the university and its hospitals, our entrepreneurs, our highly educated workforce. And I might add, I'm not sure why there's a suggestion of removing the medical and dental use as a zoning condition prohibition. It builds the payroll tax base. If you look in your comprehensive plan, the page for high-paying wages and low-paying jobs, jobs, you'll notice that nearly all of the very high-paying jobs are especially suited, well-hosted in P1 land. Many of the low-paying jobs, retail, fast food, go well in B1 land. So it's not clear that we're gaining here. Such jobs for a highly educated workforce build the payroll tax base, and remember that payroll tax is about 80% of our local revenues. It also provides a buffer from the higher intensity uses of a business zone and contributes to the all-too precarious stability of our surrounding residential neighborhoods. Both the immediate vicinity and the larger business and residential districts are characterized by a balanced mix of uses. Diversity is the word here. We have all uses. We have low and high density residential. We have office. We have shopping, restaurant, and entertainment. They're all needed, but you have to save locations, save space designated, articulated for these uses. It's critical that planning protect the professional land on Euclid from the commercial pressures of the immediately adjoining. These used to be called urban activity centers. I don't know if planning talks that way anymore. You have rural ones. But High Street intersecting with Euclid all the way to Ashland intersecting with Euclid and both sides of the street, that was designated an urban activity center. As long ago as 91, the Aylesford Small Area Plan, adopted by this commission, also followed closely in subsequent zone changes, the so-called right zoning of the residential neighborhoods on both sides of Euclid, followed in the Aylesford H1 and other zoning overlays, historic zoning overlays, over the next two decades, the Aylesford Small Area Plan advised drawing the line for business development exactly a long marquee. It advised intensifying the use to professional zoning, so they're talking about intensity here, which we want in this central city area, for the properties fronting Euclid, professional fronting Euclid here, but containing the business and professional uses within those established boundaries with real diligence. Today's 2013 comp plan for the entire urban county seconds and supports what were really farsighted, clearsighted, and practical goals established a whole generation ago with a lot of neighborhood and business involvement and support. Foster density, intensity, and a judicious mix of uses along the corridors, but promote development that's sensitive to context, preserving and enhancing neighborhood character. And I would mention that if the suggestion of staff recommending approval is to prohibit eight uses, that could be a red flag. Eight uses is a lot to prohibit. It may mean you're better suited to the uses of the P1 zone that it's already zoned. Why not just keep it that way? With the proposed B1 use, the applicant would seek to assimilate the site to a shopping center to which it doesn't belong. The thing about a shopping center is you have buffering around the edges, and you have shared access and shared parking. None of that applies to the site next door. It's got to have its own access and parking. Traffic circulation is going to be a problem. I can't see from what I've heard of proposed uses that the development is filling an unmet need for the neighborhood. We've got a lot of fast food. There's, in fact, a fast food court, a food court, a deli court in the Kroger's of about 77 seats. and the site statistics on the plan you have, the ZDP, show 72 seats for a restaurant with a drive-through that I would have to call fast food pizza was mentioned. Someone said something about a Cane's chicken. The applicant meeting with the neighborhood talked about a Raisin Cane's place. The grocery store, just opposite, meets all these needs, and fast food is abundant in the area, and a lot of the fast food that's abundant in the area is local businesses, local entrepreneurship, which tends to return more of the dollars to the community. Great variety. Important also is the range of sizes, designs, and rents. If everything gets high rent, Mr. Collar, the applicant mentioned the many Collar properties that have welcome businesses in them and contribute to the economy and said the vacancy rate was very low. I'm thinking about the Buddy's Restaurant on that corner there in the Saratoga Center that's been vacant really for rather a long time, and I'm told that the rent is quite high. It can't be denied that these properties have been to some degree neglected and underutilized for a number of years. Look at them. They look a little ramshackle, especially on the back end of the corner building. Actually, a lot of landlords do a lot, lot worse. By contrast, could I have 3A, I think it is? The image, 3A? It says Walton Zones or something? Yeah. Oh, no, that's the wrong one. Next one. No, next one. Is there one that is labeled Walton? Okay. There you go. The green you're looking at there is P1 zoning on Walton. Immediately behind it is the Belcourt Historic District. It's both National Register and H1. This zoning along Walton is not H1. It's just how they chose to maintain their properties. And Main Street runs along the corner. I realize I'm waving at what you're not seeing. This is where Walton meets Main. And now could I have the following picture? Can you enlarge it at all? These are just the sort of properties. beautifully maintained P1 properties that contribute to the economy, contribute to the neighborhood character, just the sort of thing we'd like to see in our neighborhood as well. They've been adapted. These properties on Walton provide a range of needed professional services, mostly during daytime hours. They're not 24-7 kinds of operations with traffic, without offering noise and nuisance to the adjoining neighborhood. And remember, our comp plan talks about sensitivity to context and neighborhood character. Our neighborhood is a verdant, walkable, early 20th century historic neighborhood, and the context is actually reviewed and ratified by federal, state, and local government, the National Register Historic Process. If I could go back to the map one that I didn't want earlier, Ms. Clark, let me offer this. I really try and be fair to everybody. I'm interested in what you've got to say, but taking longer than what the applicant or the staff even did. So can you just please move along? Okay. This area is literally surrounded by historic districts. They're ratified at every level. That's part of the historic character. reduce the carbon footprint this is another of the goals and objectives i don't see it there are 22 trees currently on the lot every one of them is to be gone you have tiny green strips around the perimeter traffic i think is going to be a real problem it's anyone going in there is crossing a bike lane, please lose the drive-through. It's going to put the stacking through the site circulation, and you'll have people on Euclid piling up to turn in. I would have to say I agree with legal staff advice on the setback at 20 feet for the front yard. The setback all along Marquis, and there is a picture of it, but never mind, is 30 feet. The way I read, you have a handout with boxes here, the staff comments, okay? If you look closely and judge for yourself, the second of the ordinances here regarding the side street side yard, it seems to me to direct you back to the front yard ordinance to decide what front yard depth is right for the zone. I would put that at 30 or, yes, at 30. I think this is not ready, and I would just close by saying a great deal of what we learned about the plan as proposed, we learned late this morning. If there aren't other neighbors here to have an opinion, it's because we haven't had the time to formulate a meaningful response. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Others? Yes, sir? We've got two others. Either one of y'all. Hi, my name is Sally Warfield. I'm the legislative aide for Diane Lawless. She's the representative of the 3rd District that this is located in. We only really have a few things to say. And the first is, like Amy just said, this has changed so much that this is really an 11th hour update and 11th hour opinion by the staff. And we would have appreciated more time to be able to let our residents know what's going on, keep them informed, and get them out if they have issues, which we've got wonderful constituents here today. But we really believe that based on the response that they had to the Kroger right next door, there would be more constituents with more concerns than the ones that were able to show up today because of the extremely short notice on the update of the plan. And the second thing that we're concerned about is right now ongoing is a commercial corridor study for Euclid out of our planning division. We're paying, I want to say, around $90,000 to have it done to look at use of Euclid and limestone as a whole, what's appropriate, what's best to connect the university to the rest of the city. And we think it's premature to approve zoning before that study is complete. We would like to see it as a more comprehensive look at the entire area rather than piecemealing it, which is what we're being asked to do today. And I'd also like to comment that your concern about sewer capacity, just based on my personal experience working with constituents in the area, I know of at least one property in Marquee that their basement floods a minimum of pretty much twice a year and has been doing that for the last six to eight years. Every time the city has to pay to come and clean it up because it is legitimately our bad, it is an issue with sewer capacity in that area. I can't imagine this development is going to make it any better. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Graham Pohl, 977 Fincastle Road. I am the managing partner of the Ashland Building, which is the adjacent building to this property. I have just very little to say. I don't think this has been sprung on us at the last minute, and my experience has been that they've been sharing schemes all along. I've seen probably eight schemes. This is, in my view, the best of the schemes that we've seen. I do share particularly the concerns of Mr. Barker and particularly the concerns about the safety of the egress from the alley to Marquis Avenue. I believe that to do this safely that we would need to ensure that there would be no parking on Marquis Avenue between Euclid and Macaw's Alley because parking obstructs the visibility of traffic coming in and out of Macaw's Alley. I mean, it's exactly why Ethan Buell's marketing director had a very, very serious accident at that juncture just in the last few months. the question of the setback off of euclid can easily be resolved very simply by saying that it should be within five feet of the setback of the building that i manage that's what the legislation that's what the ordinance indicates the reason there's some confusion about it is that when we measured it we measured it at 20 feet the staff is saying it's 23 to 24 feet it's probably somewhere in between so we just say it needs to be within five feet of the front of our building and i think uh i think that's a perfectly reasonable place for it to be i think it'll feel good on the street i think it it works um uh so um those are my thoughts thank you very much mr pro your building is set at what distance your building is set at what distance? I'm sorry? Your building is set at what distance? I believe it's 20 feet. The staff said it's 23 to 24. Okay. It's in that range. Okay. All right. And as are almost all of the buildings as you go up and down there, there's a very consistent setback. Okay. Thank you. Traffic, do you want to weigh in on this right now? Anything to add? No? Okay. All right. Our time limit, Mr. King? our time I'm sorry our time as far as what's left with this room I think you know the council meeting starts at 6 and I do know they need some amount of time to prepare okay so I would say okay Corbett Hill would be your your outside okay very good questions from Planning Commission okay so sorry yes yes you're next we there's been a lot of discussion about the parking i think parking and traffic in that area is going to be very very difficult um and sidebars i understand that that's really not our purview somebody weigh in legal traffic on whether we can require or disallow parking on marquee that is not under the commission's purview but i see miss cocker is coming to explain the process for doing such things um the parking on marquee it's you know it's public roadway i don't think that we can restrict it with this development plan you all can correct me if i'm wrong um parking does get restricted throughout the town due to um things that arise whether it's access or no i'm sorry to cut you No. It's been a long day. Yes or no. I agree. Can we say there's no parking on Marquee or not? You cannot say it based on this. I'll add that we'll agree that we'll facilitate or help eliminate the parking between our drive, or between the alley and Euclid Avenue on our side of the road. We don't see that as a problem and probably encourage it. Are you just passing out cards? I'll make it easy. Okay. I just gave her my card. If they send a request for no parking, we can take a look at it for a safety issue and get with traffic and issue no parking. All right. Thank you, sir. Other questions? So are we going to document that on this plan, or how do we? I don't think we can. We'll just. Yeah. It will be in the record of the hearing. Yes. So other questions, thoughts? Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. I would disagree with this plan because of under the goals, objectives, E and H, that it does not reinforce the fabric of the neighborhood. and it's not consistent with neighborhood needs and character. And particularly, I arrive at that because of the drive-thru. When you have a drive-thru that's going out into a crowded alley, I just think that's a really congested area and that drive-thru just doesn't fit at that corner. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley, do you have a question? No, I've just got a couple of comments. Well, let me do this. Are there any other questions? If not, we'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, just before you begin your deliberations, I want to clarify or make a correction. The Division of Planning is not doing a study on Euclid. There is a study that's funded that is being done out of our commissioner's office in conjunction with the Downtown Development Authority. is my understanding that is not a land use study, but it is an economic development study. And again, since it was said there was, it seemed like there might have been some kind of land use or small area plan being done by planning, I did think that was a factual area that I did want to correct. There is a study, but it's not being done by the Division of Planning. It's in the department under our commissioner. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley? Comments? Yes. Yeah, just a couple of things. First of all, I guess the B1 zone, I just don't look at that as eliminating P1. I mean, it's a principle allowed use. If it works out that somebody wants to rent an office and they're willing to pay the rent, then it can be used as P1. So I don't see that as being an issue. the setback. The one thing I'll know about the setback is the building that is directly across the street, it's oriented towards the front of the building, I guess, is oriented towards, what is that? Park Lafayette. But the side of the building is oriented along Euclid, and it is literally right up on the sidewalk. So we don't have that, you know, that setback is not what we have across the street. I realize it may be what it is on an adjoining property, but I just don't see that as being established in that area like that. I live in the neighborhood. I think this would be a good addition to the neighborhood in my opinion. Others? If not, yeah, go ahead. I'll get it off my chest. All right. I would agree with the applicant that C and D on the prohibited uses. I think there's adequate examples of that in the neighborhood that this applicant shouldn't be prohibited from putting those in. I don't like the drive-through. I think that would be a bad addition to the neighborhood. I would love to be able to try to rectify the parking situation, but we can't. Others? I would agree with Patrick in the fact that with the drive-thru, it seems like it's creating problems in this situation. I'm not going to speak for Mr. Penn. I've heard him say too many times that 10 pounds of flour and 8 pounds sack. But the drive-through is problematic for me. So we're working on the setback. I'd like to see as much as possible. I think the discussion is within reason, though. With that, any other comments? Yes, ma'am? Just in terms of conditional zoning restrictions, that would be something you could restrict because it is a particular use on the property. I know the applicant wouldn't be in favor of that, but. Yes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may also, in order to possibly resolve one of the issues, we can propose a revision to the last condition on your development plan. and we'll put that on the overhead to eliminate the 20-foot dimension and just put the language that was suggested by Mr. Pohl during his comments. I think that, I believe that will be consistent with most of the comments today. And his suggestion was? That instead of being 20 feet, it would be within 5 feet of the setback for the Ashland building. Okay. Okay. Hopefully that will pop up in just a minute. Others? Comments? If not, yes, ma'am? So we can make a condition, no drive-thru? If it's up to the commission, yes. I would propose that for a condition. Do you want to make a motion? If not, anyone else? No, I don't want to make that motion. Okay. Someone wants to make a motion? I cannot. Sir, go for it. Mr. Chair, I'll make a recommendation of approval of MAR 2014-16 with the two noted staff recommended approval items eliminating from item 2 the C&D uses. Okay. I'm fine with the drive-thru. The motion is for approval of MAR 2014-16 for the reasons listed by the staff and eliminating two of the listed prohibited uses, which is C and D. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Any discussion? If not, um, yes? Does your motion include what's on the pink piece of paper or what's up there? I'm doing the NAR. Okay, I know I'm just in regard to the, oh, I'm sorry, never mind. Okay. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2014-16 as listed on your brown sheet with the exception of taking off, deleting C and D under prohibited uses. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, we did not get the second. David Drake seconded. Thank you. So we have discussion? Yes, sir. Okay, so I just clarified. I thought I was in the wrong place, too, when I asked Will about the drive-through. The legal just clarified to me that if we pass this motion, that does include the drive-through. So it's not something you take up as a conditional use later on the ZDP. Correct. Wait a minute. I'm glad to hear that. Sir? Okay, never mind. I'm glad. Any discussion? Mr. Penn? I just can't vote for the drive-through. And if this does, if we can't do that in the development plan, then you've changed the way I'm going to vote. Because I just cannot, thank you for passing that on. I didn't hear it that way. Anything else? I'll call for a vote then. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion fails. So do we have another motion? Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to the exact same motion that Mr. Berkley just made with the exception of a conditional use added that no drive-thrus. I'm sorry, until... Conditional zoning restriction. Conditional zoning restriction for no drive-thrus. Thank you, Chair. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2014-16. as shown on the staff's recommendations in eliminating C&D. Is that correct, Patrick? Yeah. And I'd like to hold for just a second because this is important. Right, this is important. We would like to address the drive-through issue. We work with traffic a great deal to design the drive-through to accommodate a lot of these concerns. And I think that we're going to vote it up or down right now without having had an opportunity to really address that. And I think that if Tony could talk to you for a second about the widening of Marquise, they're willing to do the backing up of the throat for the drive-through and then the overall movement of the parking to the other side of the street, I think the drive-through will make a lot more sense. And it will be a valuable use to this property in the neighborhood. Procedurally, I don't know how to do that. I'm willing to withdraw my motion because I think this is an important thing to address. But it's going to take a lot to convince me, Tony. Quickly, Tony. Well, meeting with traffic engineering, we came up with a solution where we are proposing to widen McCall's Alley across the length of the drive-through to an 18-foot. The idea was to – it's currently a 12-foot driveway. There's really not much definition to the alley, as you've seen in the pictures, where parking kind of comes up to it. It's pretty well defined on our property. but we've widened it from 12 feet to 18 feet. We didn't want to widen it anymore because we wanted it to still be an alley and not a street. So we agreed to the 18 foot. It tapers back across our property to the 12 foot at our property line back here. We're going to put in a concrete curb at grade so you can drive right over it. It's just a strip to kind of reinforce the taper of the alley. So once you pass the drive-through area, you get diverted back into the 12-foot where it is constructed here. But basically we have a 10-foot drive aisle with a turn back to the McCall's Alley, enough room for a car to sit and wait for if there's traffic there. Again, it's encouraging the motion out to Marquis so it doesn't come back onto the residential area and out. We've agreed to eliminate the parking on the street here to clear up the sight lines there. So we've really done a lot to address the drive-through. There's no intersections on the other side of Marquis anymore, where there are now. There's an intersection somewhere in here for Kroger and an intersection here. The Kroger intersection is way down here. So there's really nothing. There's no traffic turning left or coming out at the alley as there is now. So it's quite a bit cleaner than what you've experienced in the past, and that's what we've done to try to resolve the vehicular motions there. So I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parker. At this point, Mr. Parker, I don't think that it's needed. We did close it. This was for clarification, as asked for, and I think at this point in time we're going to have to move on. So, Ms. Plumlee, did you have something? With all apologies to Tony, a drive-thru is still a drive-thru, and considering the congestion of the neighborhood, I just don't think it's appropriate. It's something that we want to label that we participated in. At least I'm not willing to do that at this point. Thank you. May I ask for a brief question? No, ma'am. I'm sorry, but no. Mike, one comment. We did approve a drive-thru on the Kroger. But, you know, personally, I think this is a different issue. So, Mr. Patrick Brewer, I think you withdrew your motion. So we're back to the fact of do we have someone willing to make a motion on this? Yes, ma'am. I move approval of ZDP 2014-65 with the conditions that we discussed earlier. Are we putting C&D back in? You're making the motion, ma'am. We need to be back at the MAR, not the ZDP. Sorry. Yes. Okay. Yeah, we're still on the MAR. Okay. Thank you, Tracy. And with the six, seven conditions, eight conditions, number seven being. Ms. Plumlee. Okay. Back up to the supplemental staff report on the brown sheet. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I've got it. MAR 2014-16. all right that's still not it yes ma'am that that's what we need okay with staff approval and um move approval 20 of mar 2014-16 uh with I don't understand this. Let somebody else do it. Okay. So, someone else. We're making an attempt here. Well, I'll go back with my same motion as I started. I don't think we can do that. Okay. We need a substantially different motion. Yes, sir. I move for approval of MAR 14, day 16, with staff recommendations, leaving B and C. That's C and D. C and D, excuse me. Leaving C and D and prohibiting a drive-in location with the zone change. Okay, so when you say leaving C&D, Mr. Penn, for clarification, C&D will be a prohibited use? Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Did you mean drive-through, Mr. Penn, not drive-in? I'm sorry. I know Mr. Brewer gave me the evil eye because I didn't jump up and correct you. Drive-in is like Sonic and drive-through is... Thank you. I'm asking. I don't want the drive-through. Okay. CND is, are you saying is, as a staff recommendation? I'm leaving the staff recommendation the way it is, but I do not want the drive-through. Now, you can interpret it any way you want to, but that's. So adding I, drive-through facilities. Yes, if that's where you'd like to do it. Thank you. Okay. So the motion is approval of MAR 2014-16, as the staff has recommended on the brown sheet with the prohibited uses, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and now adding I as a drive-through being a prohibited use. We can do it that way. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of this motion. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion fails. Do we have another different significant motion? Well, that's a possibility. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move in regard to MAR 2014-16 that this be postponed until we have a resolve of the, or continued, I guess, until we have a resolve of some of these issues that are, I think, causing us all some heartburn. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for continuance of MAR 2014-16. We need to. specific date. Would you like to defer to the subdivision? Two weeks or four weeks? Two weeks. September 11th. Motion has been made for continuance of MAR 2014-16 as a continuance until September 11, 2014. We did have a second by Ms. Plumlee. Any questions? If not, Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Work a little harder, and we'll see you in a couple of weeks. Do we have time to squeeze? Chairman, if we can be quick, I'm told that they actually only need five to ten minutes to turn the room over, but we would need to move fairly quickly. You're saying you think you can do it? Yeah, we can do it, Mike. Okay. There's no discussion. Who's, who, there he is right there. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission members. This next item appears on page 6 and 7 of your agenda. This is ZOTA 2014-5. This is a proposed amendment to the special provisions that are found in the community center CC zone. They killed the drive-thru. I don't know what their problem is. These special conditions in this zone have existed since the expansionary master plan in 1996. They have been most recently amended in 2012, and this petitioner seeks to allow for two stores that are larger than 50,000 square feet in a CC zone. This map shows the five locations in the expansion area where we have CC zoning. They're shown by the red dots in that. Two of those are over 30 acres in size, and only one of those is both over 30 acres and also adjacent to an interstate interchange. The special provisions to this text amendment apply only to the one location that meets both of those criteria. At your zoning committee meeting, the staff told the committee members we were in agreement in principle with this proposal, but not with the details of the proposal. We felt it was complex and that there was a greater need for this to be simplified. So we recommended postponement at that time. In the intervening three weeks, the staff and the petitioner have sent several drafts back and forth. I believe those are in your notebook. In addition, we have a supplemental staff report in your notebook as well. A week ago, the staff presented you a draft alternative text, which we provided to you again today on green paper, as we did a week ago, proposing a much more simplified version. And today, we have yet another version with yesterday's date that we were able to email to you. This is at the back of the supplemental staff report. I will apologize in our copying and our haste. The shading that is proposed is not on this. The staff is recommending three additional changes to what we showed you last week, two of which we covered last week. That is updating the square footage changes from 15,000 to 20,000, primarily because drugstores have increased in size. Secondly, a change from 50,000 square feet to 80,000 in these areas for grocery stores. Again, if you will remember a zone change we had a month ago in Lee's Town, a modern grocery store, we debated an 80,000 square foot number. We think those are logical changes after 18 years of this regulation. In the left column at the very bottom is the one most significant change from your review last week at work session. Staff is proposing adding in a phrase where there be a maximum of only two buildings that can be larger than 20,000 square feet. in any of these qualifying CC areas. We sensed when we presented this to you last week there was some concern by the commission as to the number of large buildings. This was on the applicant's original proposal, and the staff has added this back into this text amendment in an attempt to address that concern. The staff has provided you with findings for approval of this revision. We are suggesting the simplified version that is attached to the supplemental report. I know the hour is late. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. Any questions? Being late hour, I don't think so. All right, thank you. Anything to add from the audience? I promise to be more brief than the other people that promised to be brief. We're in complete agreement now with the staff, and we are happy to take any specific questions. We think we've addressed the concerns that were raised at both the work session and the subdivision committee. there are only two big boxes basically that will be allowed in this type of situation and it gets at the point where you can have a grocery store or you can have two basically retail stores it kind of just eliminated that that little this is not court thank you anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this if not I'll close this part of it and ask for a motion if everybody's ready Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Zota 2014-5. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Any other commission items? I didn't tell him it didn't pass. Staff items? No. Next meeting is committee meetings at the first of the month next Thursday, folks. Motion for adjournment. Second. All in favor? Aye. Meetings adjourned.