# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - August 24, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 24, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4323 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4323?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-08-24 - **Last revised**: August 24, 2017 - **Length**: 22,041 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on August 24, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting addressed two primary agenda items, both involving zoning map amendments that were ultimately approved by the commission. During the session, the commission conducted five motions and votes while hearing one public comment from community members. The two main items of business were the Afton Community Development, LLC Zoning Map Amendment and the Newton's Attic Zoning Map Amendment, both of which received approval from the commission. The meeting demonstrated the commission's ongoing work in reviewing and approving zoning changes within Fayette County's urban service area. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on August 24, 2017: • Frank Penn • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Will Berkley • Mike Owens • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • Larry Forester • Carolyn Richardson • Bill Wilson All members were present with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included five motions, all of which were decided by voice vote. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Ms. Plumley motioned to approve the minutes from the July 27, 2017 and July 13, 2017 meetings, seconded by Ms. Mundy. The motion passed by voice vote. **ZOTA 2016-5 Postponement** [timestamp: 02:00] Mr. Mike Craven motioned for indefinite postponement of the amendment to Article 23A-10: Supportive Uses as a Special Provision in the Economic Development (ED) Zone, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens. The motion to postpone passed by voice vote. **Newton's Attic Zoning Map Amendment (PLN-MAR-17-00025)** [timestamp: 10:00] Mr. Lawrence motioned to approve the Newton's Attic Zoning Map Amendment, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer. The motion passed by voice vote with three reasons provided by staff. **Newton's Attic Property Development Plan (PLN-MJDP-17-00082)** [timestamp: 12:00] Mr. Lawrence motioned to approve the Newton's Attic Property Development Plan, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson. The motion passed by voice vote with 11 conditions provided by staff. **Afton Community Development Zoning Map Amendment (PLN-MAR-17-00016)** [timestamp: 45:00] Ms. Carolyn Richardson motioned to approve the Afton Community Development, LLC Zoning Map Amendment, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens. The motion passed by voice vote with reasons provided by staff. All motions were approved unanimously through voice votes, with no recorded individual vote counts or dissenting votes. ## Public Comment The public comment period included one speaker addressing a zoning matter before the board. **Mr. Jacob Wallburn** spoke regarding the Greendale Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 120:00]. Mr. Wallburn indicated that he was representing several interested neighbors in the matter. He informed the board that the neighbors he represented had successfully reached an agreement with the applicant concerning the proposed zoning conditions. Mr. Wallburn did not elaborate on the specific terms of the agreement or detail the particular concerns that had been addressed through the negotiation process. No other members of the public provided comments during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary contested item that generated community discussion and opposition. **Drive-through facilities on Lucille Drive** The main point of contention centered on a proposal regarding drive-through facilities within 150 feet of Lucille Drive. The disagreement focused on whether such facilities should be permitted in this location, with community members expressing concerns about the potential negative impacts on nearby residential areas. The opposition raised specific issues about noise pollution and increased traffic that would result from allowing drive-through operations in close proximity to Lucille Drive. Residents appeared concerned that these facilities would disrupt the character and livability of the surrounding neighborhood. The discussion highlighted the tension between commercial development interests and residential quality of life considerations. Community members who opposed the proposal emphasized how drive-through facilities could generate additional vehicle traffic and noise throughout operating hours, potentially affecting the peace and safety of nearby homes. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, participant names, and the final outcome of this contested item were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Afton Community Development, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 45:00] The commission reviewed a zoning map amendment request from Afton Community Development, LLC to rezone property from Single Family Residential to a combination of High Density Apartment and Professional Office zones. Key speakers during the discussion included Tracy Wade and Tom Martin, who presented details about the proposed zoning changes and their implications for the development project. The amendment represents a significant change in the intended use of the property, transitioning from lower-density single-family housing to higher-density residential units combined with commercial office space. This type of mixed-use zoning typically allows for more intensive development and can accommodate both residential and business uses within the same area. Following consideration of the proposal, the commission approved the zoning map amendment for Afton Community Development, LLC. The approval allows the developer to proceed with plans that align with the new High Density Apartment and Professional Office zoning designations rather than the previous Single Family Residential classification. ## Newton's Attic Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 10:00] The commission reviewed a zoning map amendment for Newton's Attic involving a zone swap between Agricultural Rural and Neighborhood Business designations. The proposed amendment would facilitate the expansion of an existing school by exchanging zoning classifications on different portions of the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Tracy Wade and Tom Martin, who presented details about the zoning change request. The amendment involves swapping zones from Agricultural Rural to Neighborhood Business on one area while changing another section from Neighborhood Business to Agricultural Rural. The commission ultimately approved the Newton's Attic zoning map amendment, allowing the school expansion project to move forward under the new zoning configuration. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from July 27, 2017 and July 13, 2017 meetings - **ZOTA 2016-5** — postponed (0-0): Indefinite postponement of amendment to Article 23A-10: Supportive Uses as a Special Provision in the Economic Development (ED) Zone - **PLN-MAR-17-00025** — passed (0-0): Approval of Newton's Attic Zoning Map Amendment - **PLN-MJDP-17-00082** — passed (0-0): Approval of Newton's Attic Property Development Plan - **PLN-MAR-17-00016** — passed (0-0): Approval of Afton Community Development, LLC Zoning Map Amendment --- ## Full transcript So long, it's good, and I finally came home. She lives dreaming. I try to get undressed without the light. And quietly she says, I was your night. And I come to her and say it was alright And I feel I need her time And she believes in me I'll never know just what she sees in me I told her someday that she was my girl I could change the world With my little songs I was wrong But she has left me And so I go on trying to wait for me And who knows maybe on some special night If my song is right I will find a way, find a way While she waits for me I stumble to the kitchen for goodbye Then I see my own guitar in the night Just waiting for life A secret thing And there's a room She lives crying I bumble with a melody Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the August 24th, 2017 Urban County Planning Commission meeting. Welcome to all those in the audience. Welcome to the commission members. Welcome to the staff. Thank you all for your time and service. With that, we'll have the approval of minutes. We've got two sets to approve, July 27th and July 13th. Any additions or deletions? I would like to do this as a consensus if possible. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move approval of July 13, 2017, and July 27, 2017 minutes. What about July 13th? Did you say 13th and 27th? Okay, good. Moved by Ms. Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Mundy that we approve the minutes of July 27, 2017, and July 13, 2017. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Postponements and our withdrawals. Yes, ma'am. Chairman Wilson, members of the commission, the staff would like to request an indefinite postponement of ZODA 2016-5. This appears on page 11 of the agenda. It's regarding supportive uses in the economic development zone. this is a planning commission's case and the staff has recommended disapproval so we would suggest indefinite postponement of this or withdrawal there is one interested party the miller estate and they have actually expressed an interest in having an indefinite postponement rather than a withdrawal at this time and the staff is agreeable to that anyone in the audience So if I have any comments related to this particular item, it's on page 11. It's the Zota 2016 amendment to Article 23.8-10. Anyone on the commission? Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Mr. Cravens. I'm going to move indefinite postponement of ZOTA 2016-5. Second. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Cravens, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens, that we have an indefinite postponement of ZOTA 2016-5, amendment to Article 23A-10, supportive uses as a special provision in the economic development zone. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? When it comes up on your screens? Thank you. Motion carries. Indefinite postponement it is. any other postponements or withdrawals okay then we will start our provision Ms. Wade I think we have several abbreviated items do you have any precursors to that? We do the staff believes there are several items on today's agenda that would qualify for abbreviated hearings We'll run through the agenda quickly and see if there's anyone present in the audience that wishes to speak or object to any of those that we believe could be abbreviated, and we'll take those one at a time. If there are members of the audience who wish to speak, if you would just let us know, and we'll move that to a full public hearing today. The first item that qualifies for an abbreviated hearing is located on page 4 of the agenda. It's about halfway down. Newton's Attic is the applicant. It's MAR17-25. This is a petition for a zone change at 4974 Old Versailles Road. It's a portion of that property. The request is to rezone from an agricultural rural, which is our AR zone, to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 1.16 net and gross acres, and also from a neighborhood business zone to an agricultural rural zone for 1.16 net and 2.71 gross acres, again, for property at 4973 Old Versailles Road. There are also a conditional use in dimensional variances requested with this application. Are there any members of the audience who would wish to speak to this case or oppose this case today? Seeing none, that will qualify as our first abbreviated hearing today. The second item that the staff believes does qualify for an abbreviated hearing appears on page 6 of the agenda. it is mar 17-26 a request by lees town va housing llp and this is a request to rezone property located at 2250 lees town road a portion of that parcel for 10.68 net and gross acres and the request is to rezone from an agricultural urban au zone to a high density apartment a our four zone. Staff would ask if there's anyone present in the audience today that wishes to speak to or oppose this proposed rezoning. Seeing none, that would qualify as our second abbreviated hearing for today. And the third case that would qualify as an abbreviated hearing appears on page eight of the agenda. It is MAR 17-27. The request is for meadow thorpe senior housing llp and this is a petition or proposed zone change to rezone from a neighborhood business b1 zone to a high density apartment r4 zone that property is located at 1447 antique drive at this time we'd ask again if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak thank you sir we'll make that a full hearing today so chairman wilson we can proceed with the two abbreviated hearings today and then we'll move through the agenda in the order it appears after that thank you the staff will be prepared in just a minute we're back on page uh four page abbreviated we're taking uh the first is newton's attic zoning so are we prepared for the presentation on that Thank you. Thank you. Again, we're on page four today for our first hearing, and that information appears in your notebook behind tab two. This is a request from Newton's Attic to rezone property at 4974 Old Versailles Road. The request is a zone swap, actually, from an AR to a B1 and then from a B1 to an AR. the subject property is located adjacent to the Fort Springs rural settlement very near Versailles Road actually just south of her sales Road at its intersection with old for sales Road and the subject property is comprised of over five acres but the request is to rezone or swap about three and a quarter acres. So the front portion of the property is currently zoned B1, and that zone line bisects the subject property. So the front portion is all in the B1 zone, and the rear portion closer to South Elkhorn Creek, and on the aerial photo you can see the creek, along South Elkhorn Creek is in the AR zone. So they are proposing a swap where they rezone a portion along Old Versailles Road from B1 to AR and then the portion to the rear of their property from AR to B1 and the reasoning behind that is to really make their property more developable the B1 portion of the property is currently almost all in the floodplain it's the floodplain from the South Elkhorn Creek which you can see on the aerial photograph on the overhead does wrap around the subject property and also continues down sort of parallel to Old Versailles Road in the Fort Springs neighborhood. Zoning in this vicinity of the subject property is primarily AR. We have AR to the east and to the north. To the east, immediate east, is actually the Bluegrass Airport, and the Rural Activity Center associated with that is just a little bit further to the east. Within the rural settlement, there are two zones. There's B1, which is there along Old Versailles Road, and then there's an R1D zone that encompasses most of the residential properties in that rural settlement. The existing user of the subject property is Newton's Attic, and they are a school for academic instruction. And they are not a typical school. They actually operate more in an after-school environment or camp environment, so the number of students that are coming and going on a daily basis does vary. They provide science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in that environment, and so it's fairly specialized. I mentioned the creek that does encompass a part of the property, and there's just a couple photos of the subject property. They have been operating there for a number of years. And so there's sort of a principal structure and accessory structures that are currently in the AR zone. They wish to at this time replace an existing structure and build a larger structure than the AR zone would permit. And that's what really prompted the rezoning. They wish to build a 26,000 square foot structure. And so they needed to be in the B1 zone rather than the AR, which limits it to 10,000 square feet. So these are their existing structures and existing use of the subject property. On this particular day, they did have a camp or activity that was occurring, so there were a number of vehicles on site. And this is a view from Olver Sales Road looking at the subject property. The applicant did cite several goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan that they felt they met. However, our comprehensive plan is really more geared towards the urban service boundary, or urban service area, and guiding development within that area. But we do have the rural land management plan as it relates to the rural service area. And I did mention the Fort Springs Rural Settlement. Although Fort Springs exists in this area, the subject property was actually removed from the Fort Springs Rural Settlement in 2007 with that comprehensive plan. There was a 2007 study of rural settlements, and at that time the boundary with the comprehensive plan being adopted was adjusted, and the subject property was removed. So the Planning Commission really can't consider it as part of the rural settlement any longer. It would just be something you all consider in terms of a property located in the rural service area and it being split zoned and how to handle that. As you know, there's no longer a land use map associated with our comprehensive plan, but we do have goals and objectives. And the applicant, while they cited the goals and objectives that relate to the rural land, the staff doesn't believe that their application really meets the comprehensive plan or the rural land management plan. And is it recommended actually rezoning all of the business zones in the rural service area to residential? And in this case, for Fort Springs, it recommended R1D. However, this business has operated here for a number of years, and businesses have operated this location for decades. And clearly, they wish to continue and expand at this location with no intention of single-family residential being here. So with that in mind, the staff looked at whether this was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, but rather appropriate versus not appropriate. And there was some unique situations for the subject property that the staff considered in terms of the proposed zone change swap. First, the South Elkhorn Creek does surround two sides of the subject property, and its floodplain encumbers a good portion of the subject property. In addition, the current B1 zone crosses the subject property at sort of an odd angle, and so it is located within mostly the floodplain and the creek area. This makes the B1 zoning that would normally be able to be developed restricted, fairly restricted, whereas the AR land was not restricted. It was outside of the floodplain. This land is really too small for a typical farm, the applicant pointed out, and the AR zone really offers a better buffer along the creek than the B1 zone would. There's two more. It's located between Fort Springs, the rural settlement, and the airport rural activity center, which is rather unique. And then the zone swap in this case would actually result in a reduction of B1 zoning in the rural surface area, which the staff thought was generally in line with the rural land management plan. However, in this case, that reduction occurs mostly in the right-of-way, but still a reduction B1 zoning we thought was a positive step towards implementing the rural land management plan. So for those reasons, the staff did recommend approval of the requested rezoning, and we believe this zone swap is appropriate, the rezoning portion of the property to B1, and a portion to AR is appropriate, and we cited the unique situations that are associated with the subject property. The staff did recommend a few conditional zoning restrictions at this site, and those are listed on the agenda in the staff report. There were six uses that the staff felt would not be appropriate in this location, especially very near the creek and for other reasons. but happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning application and i think we also have conditional use and variance which i'll address in a minute any questions okay mr martin around yes he is oh okay he hides from me Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page six of your agenda is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. And you can see, again, it is property located out on Old Vercells Road as it comes off of Vercells Road up in this location. Here we have the creek, South Elkhorn, as it circles around the property, continues off in this direction. We've highlighted the area for you, a floodplain. There is extensive floodplain, as you've been told, on the property. Here we have the 25-foot setback that is required off the floodplain. Due to changes to the floodplain over the years and the reconfiguration, there's a slight nonconformity you can see in this location where the existing building extends slightly. over that setback the proposed school building the addition or new structure is over 22,000 square feet in size as you all are aware due to their activities their educational activities and what they do they needed a larger building to do those those activities inside the building here we have the existing building which is 24 feet in height and 8 000 square feet so this is considerably larger and its staff's understanding it's one of the conditions they denote the height that it'll be 35 feet or less in height there is a limit in the b1 there's not many limits in your b1 but that happens to be relevant and they need to list that there are two variances being requested that miss wade will discuss with you shortly one of them has to do with the 10 and the 20-foot build 2 line in your b1 obviously existing building does not meet that and to utilize the property successfully due to the flood plain surrounding the property they are building back in here where they do have buildable area they can't possibly meet that 10 and 20 build to line here and of course you have this very narrow access as well to oversells road the zone swap that's going on there's b1 to ar of course there's landscape landscaping requirements as well that are a subject of a variance again that ms wade will go over with you that they're requesting relief from along the new zone line. There are, your subdivision committee did recommend approval. There are standard conditions that you can see on the plan. There are a few cleanup conditions, including to note that the property will be developed in accordance with Article 19, and that is your floodplain ordinance, or chapter in the ordinance, and they do obviously have to meet those requirements. ultimately there'll be a finished floor elevation for instance required on that new building relative to the elevation of the floodplain very standard well they need to denote their lock coverage and floor area ratios that's an article 21 requirement and then they need to resolve the need for additional off street parking and associated landscaping there was considerable discussion and there is some concern expressed by by your staff and other divisions in the government this is largely a gravel area and they have their required parking here there's some expression of concern and we've talked with the applicant about ADA compliance and possible need for additional paving to ensure if nothing else at least ADA compliance on the property again a lot of people use a property they've been very successful and they have a lot of kids out there and that was the concern for that and some discussion took place and that's something they'll have to resolve with your staff before this plan is certified again i mentioned the two variances or waivers they've requested and then last as i stated they need to denote the height of the proposed building on the plan and with that i'll be happy to answer any questions you you may have for staff questions for mr martin okay miss wade i guess you're back up the applicant with their zone change application also requested a conditional use and that conditional use was for the school for academic instruction not in the b1 portion of the property but in the portion of the property that was being rezoned to AR. They are also asking for two variances, which I think Mr. Martin addressed. One, to increase the setback, the maximum setback in the B1 zone from 20 feet to 331 feet, and then also to eliminate the zone-to-zone screening that would normally be between the B1 and the AR zones, and that's usually a 15-foot screen. So if we look at the subject property, the first one was the school for academic construction. The area of land that will be in the AR zone does mostly coincide with the creek, but the applicant would like to keep utilizing that area for their school activities. They won't be putting a structure in any of that area, but should they ever want to, they would need to go back to the Board of Adjustment to seek an amendment to the conditional use, and it would be limited to 10,000 square feet. So at this time, they just are seeking use of the property by the students in a more informal manner. The second piece was the build-to range. So the B1 zone, as Mr. Martin mentioned, has that 10 to 20-foot range where we want to push buildings up to the street. In this case, that narrow access into the property is where the B1 would be. The existing structure already sits 90 feet back from the street, and the proposed structure would be 331. So neither of the principal structures on the site would meet the 10 to 20-foot setback, so we needed to adjust that to make sure that it complied with our B1 zone or with the variance in this case. As you can see, with the narrow setback and the floodplain, it would be difficult for the applicant to push a building up to Olver Sales Road in this case. And then the last one had to do with, again, the zone-to-zone screening, which would cut through the property. And the staff believes that it would make for a more unified development if that screening was not located on the zone-to-zone line. In fact, it would cut through the parking area that they use now, so it wouldn't be very useful. The staff did take the zone-to-zone screening landscape variance to our Landscape Review Committee on the 15th of August, and they recommended approval. So the staff is, at this point, recommending approval of the two variances, as well as the conditional use related to a school for academic instruction at this site. In general, the staff found that there should be no adverse effect on the subject property or surrounding properties related to the conditional use in the AR zone. And as I mentioned, they would be restricted to no buildings at this point. And if they ever did want to expand into that AR zone, they would need to go to the Board of Adjustment to do that. In terms of the variances, the staff also found that approving such variances would not impact the character of the general vicinity. So the staff recommended approval of all three of those. Thank you. Any other questions either on the conditional use as well as the variances for Ms. White? okay thank you thank you mr chairman and excuse me members of the commission I'm Darby Turner representing the applicant in this matter and with me is Bill and Don Cloyd who operate Newton's I own and operate Newton's attic and i'm i think tracy did a very nice job describing the activities but it's basically middle school age kids dealing uh getting hands-on experience with robotics science programming they even have a da vinci's of an old da vinci's surgery knife that one of the hospitals donated that they've reprogrammed for the kids to use. They have battle bots periodically where they'll have the robots go, the kids build the robots and see who can destroy the other one. That's the chunk pumpkins with catapults that they build, those types of activities. Very, very interesting. And if you go out there, you'll ask the question I did, and most adults do. Can we have an adult version, a class or two of this? It looks like a lot of fun. But we're in total agreement with the staff and work closely with the staff to come to arrive at where we are. We're in agreement with the recommendations and the conditions that they've recommended and would request your favorable approval. And if we can answer any questions, we'll be glad to. Any questions for Mr. Turner? Thank you very, very much. Thank you. I think this is a really good project. I shouldn't make editorial decisions before the vote, but I think it's a good project. I used it prior to the chair. It's too bad it wasn't. You said adults can go out? I might need that. That's really good. I'll turn it back to the commission at this time for a motion. Actually, we'll need four motions on this, one on the zoning, one on the development, one on the conditional use, and one on the variances. So we'd like to start us off here. Mr. Chair? Mr. Arntz? I'll give it a try. With MAR17-25 Newton Addict, I would move approval for the reasons listed by staff. I believe there's three reasons. Okay. Mr. Arntz moves and Mr. Patrick through a second that we approve PLNMAR 17-25 Newton's attic for what the three reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay. The development plan would be next, please, sir, and that's on page six. With the development plan, I'd move for approval of MJ DP 17- Nope, that's not it. You said page 6. I went to the wrong page. I'll move for approval of MJDP 17-82, Newton's Attic Property, Fort Springs with the 11 noted conditions. Okay. Mr. Mullins moves. Mr. Passage for a second so that we approve PLN MJDP 17-82 Newton's Attic Property, Fort Springs with the 11 reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. Now if we could go back to page five and pick up the, first of all, the conditional use. I'll move for approval of conditional use for MAR associated with MAR 17-25 Newton's Attic LLC for the requested conditional use of the school for academic instruction as recommended by staff with their reasons for approval. Okay, Mr. Mike Owen moves. Mr. Patrick Brewer seconds that we approve the requested conditional use that's associated with PLN MAR 17-25 Newton's attic. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you very, very much. And now for the variances, two of those. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the associated variances with plan MAR 17-25. One being for the allowable setback from 20 feet to 331 feet, and then the second for the landscape variance for the reasons as noted by the staff. Okay, Mr. Mike Owen moves. Mr. Patrick Brewer seconds that we approve the requested variances. There are two, one that has a setback from 20 feet to 331 and to eliminate the required zone-to-zone screening between the AR and the B-1 zones internal to the property. This is all associated with PLN Plan 17-25, Newton's Attic. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? motion carries everything I think is clear go and do likewise thank you and to my colleagues please don't all rush out there at one time okay thank you okay we move now to the second abbreviated it's on page six Leastown veteran housing LLP LLLP zoning map amendment Thank you. . Mr. White. Our next item is PLN MAR17-26, and this is a request by Leastown VA Housing, LLLP. They have requested a rezoning from an AU zone to an R4 zone. The subject property is located at 2250, or a portion of 2250 Leastown Road. The site is actually not located up on Leastown Road, but actually fronts onto Opportunity Way, which is an access easement that divides the VA hospital or medical center site from several other institutional uses. We have a, let's see, Leastown Middle School, State County Public Schools here, and then BCTC, our Bluegrass Community and Technical College, further to the south of the subject property. along Leastown Center Way, which fronts onto or provides, I guess, access or frontage for some nearby properties. Leastown Center Way is parallel to New Circle and some of those uses are residential and office uses closer to New Circle. The applicant is proposing to rezone 10.68 acres of property at this location in order to develop veterans housing for 50 units. The subject property is completely surrounded by AU, but they are requesting an R4 zone. This is a view looking back towards Leestown Road and the middle school. And then this is a view on the connector road between Opportunity Way and Leestown Center center and shows part of BCTC in that photo. Again, the applicant is asking to rezone in order to develop 50 dwelling units. They propose to reuse several of the buildings on the current property and provide low-income housing, primarily for veterans, but just in general, low-income housing. The site was the former location of medical facilities and staff living quarters, and the existing structures have been unoccupied since the 1980s. The applicant has cited that they believe their request is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan, and they cited several goals and objectives. First, relating to providing housing choices for affordable, accessible, and for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of older and or disadvantaged residents, including veterans. They're providing infill redevelopment and adaptive reuse, in this case, more adaptive reuse. That respects the area's context and design features. They cited well-designed neighborhoods, which include mixed-type housing. They're proposing both townhouses as well as multifamily housing on the subject property. They also cited accessible community facilities and services to meet the health, safety, and quality of life needs of residents and visitors. They cited compact and contiguous development of an urban service area, and then lastly, encouraging development of vacant and underutilized parcels. The VA Medical Center was actually not identified as a vacant tract in our 2013 comprehensive plan because it is being utilized by the VA to a certain degree, although they do have a lot of open property on their site. So this was an opportunity, again, for some found land and some increased density in an area that could absorb it without much impact to the surrounding uses. The VA hospital is still on site, and they will have a connection via sidewalks to that facility, and then also have the two school facilities, the BCTC and the middle school could provide education for anyone who's living on the VA hospital site. So generally, the VA would be exempt from our zoning regulations as a federal entity, But because they are doing a long-term lease to a separate entity to do this housing, they did have to do a zone change for the property. The staff agrees that this is in agreement with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and the goals and objectives that the applicant cited. We cited those in our findings for approval of the requested rezoning. And then the zoning committee, when they met several weeks ago, also recommended approval of the requested rezoning. Be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Okay, thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page 7 of your agenda is the preliminary development plan for this zone change, the Leastown VA housing. and we have also distributed to you at your seat on a nice lovely blue piece of paper some revised conditions for this particular plan you can see the proposed layout for the development of this property as you access it off of up to an opportunity way in this location here's Lee's town centerway here again it is surrounded by the va property these buildings right here slightly highlighted in orange for you these are the existing buildings on the property these are the buildings that they are proposing in these locations they are proposing 50 units with 101 bedrooms the associated parking layout you can see as you come up they have a nice deep entrance way parking to the interior a lot of circulation of course existing parking to the rear of this building and this parking area here's a proposed playground in this location the total square footage is 59,894 square feet from the existing and proposed buildings the lot coverage is only 34,000 a little over that about 34,000 almost 35,000 but the lot coverage in FAR are well well well below the the maximums allowed in the zone it's a large site you can see there's tremendous amount of open space it's very green very bucolic setting you know it's a very lovely lovely setting for this development here's a proposed detention area there is one item that was discussed at length and that was improvements to opportunity way a large part of that conversation has to do with safe pedestrian access to the schools assuming that there will be children and other people that will desire to walk from this development we are recommending that the appropriate level of improvements to opportunity way can be resolved at the time of the final development plan again as you all are aware this is for the zone change they won't be building anything until you have seen a final development plan and approved it and street improvements as you're aware are used to address more than just traffic movement pedestrian movement curb and gutter are also an issue and that has to do as much with storm water and appropriate measures in that regard as well but that is item six on your revised staff recommendation and with that i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff any questions for mr mark okay thank you applicant Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Cayley of EA Partners. I'm here on behalf of the applicant AU. I know that they've done a lot of projects around here. They're working on the courthouse project. I have representatives here if you have any questions specifically to the project for them. We are down to six conditions. The staff has presented this very well, and we are in agreement with these. Request your approval. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay, back to the commission. And I think if there's any other discussion that can be had now, or with that, if not, we're ready for a motion on the zone change, first of all, then the development plan. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cravens. I'm going to move approval of Plan 17-26 for the reasons provided by staff. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MAR17-26 Leastown Veterans Housing LLLP. Is that right? Three L's? Okay, I got you. I just want to make sure I wasn't seeing double it. Any other discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? The motion carries. Mr. Chairman, I want to move approval of the development plan 17-76, the revised conditions. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Craven, second by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve the PLN-MJDP-17-76 Leastown Veterans Housing with the six conditions, six reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. we're now going back to page one and pick up the this is a continuance by the way the Afton Community Development LLC Good afternoon. Our next item is actually a continuation of a public hearing that was previously held on June 22, 2017. This applicant is Afton Community Development LLC and they have, since the Planning Commission started the public hearing in June, have amended their application. So their new request for 3743 Red River Drive is from a single family residential R1D zone now to a split zone previously they had requested p1 our professional office zone for the entire site and the staff had recommended disapproval they have amended their application now to request primarily high density apartment which is our r4 zone and professional office still the p1 zone for just a quarter of an acre of the property so the portion going to r4 is 4.76 acres and i guess going to p1 is more of a half an acre 0.46 acres at the end of the hearing or towards the end of the hearing the planning commission suggested to the applicant that they take a serious look at the staff's recommendation and they did that and amended their application in order to continue it for today and although not on the powerpoint display the staff did try to indicate on the map board and it should also be in your notebooks behind tab one the area proposed for the p1 zone is in the corner of their parcel along Red River but closer to Niagara Falls and if you recall that was the location of where they want a standalone professional office structure and I'm refer to the development plan in this northeast corner of the subject property so they aligned their proposed p1 very succinctly very tightly around the area that they would be using for professional office specifically it includes the parking the 15 required parking spaces and the access into that portion of the property and nothing more they did not make very many changes to their development plan and mr. Martin will address that but with the zone change request they did have to apply for a conditional use for the uses that we described before but those are again an assisted living facility adult and child care centers and then the community center in the r4 zone part of the property they also asked for two variances related to landscaping so as we talked about on the previous case or two cases ago there's zone zone to zone screening between the residential and the professional office zone so they would normally be required to provide trees and shrubs and a 15 foot buffer or a fence where that line goes through the parking lot obviously that wouldn't be a an ideal location for buffering they are also required to have a vehicular island for landscaping and they're requesting a variance from that as well When the staff received the amended rezoning, we did reconvene and look at the proposal. And the staff did agree this time that the proposal, because it reduced the P1 impact so significantly, that at this point we could agree that it does agree with the comprehensive plan. And the West Armstrong Mill small area plan for this area. Armstrong Mill West smaller airplanes excuse me they cited several goals and objectives first they're expanding housing choices to meet the needs of the disadvantaged and older populations which is theme a goal one and C 1 C excuse me I'm gonna get to those and they also cited gold 2a of theme a which is support opportunities for infill redevelopment and in this case adaptive reuse they're reusing the existing structures from the baptist school and then also providing for accessible community facilities and services to meet health safety and quality of life needs for the for the community so those were the three goals and objectives that the staff agreed were being met with the proposed application in addition to that the small area plan for for Armstrong Mill West encompasses the subject property and specifically goal five calls for improved quality of life and health for all residents and because they are providing very limited medical services by creating an incidental office at this location they are providing services for all ages by creating the adult and child daycare as part of the community center and also improving access to healthy food through the use of the community garden on site. The staff did fill those three aspects of their development plan and proposal met the goal from the small area plan to improve quality of life and health for the residents. In addition, the applicant offered, and this was a concern in the first hearing, conditional zoning restrictions and fairly significant conditional zoning restrictions for the P1 and R4 portion of the property. And in reviewing those, the staff did make some changes in our recommendation. The conditional zoning restrictions recommended by the staff incorporated a majority of what the petitioner offered. However, the staff could not support allowing community centers as a principle permitted use, rehabilitation homes, hospitals, or accessory pharmacies. and the accessory retail sales or personal services that would be allowed. So our proposed conditional zoning restrictions went a little further in some regards and removed some things they wanted to restrict in other regards. So the staff is recommending approval, and we believe this now complies with the comprehensive plan and the small area plan for the subject property. And the conditional zoning restrictions are on the agenda today, but they also appear in the staff report. and they are fairly significant and again the staff recommendation was based on what the applicant offered so they were restricting the p1 portion which is the half acre corner to only nine principal uses two accessory uses and two potential conditional uses In addition, in the R4 zone, they were proposing that no restrictions on the principal uses, but in terms of conditional uses, that they only be allowed six conditional uses. And again, those are on the agenda in the staff report. In addition to those restrictions, they offered other use restrictions for the parcel. First, that the P1 area be restricted to only a 3,000 square foot building. one story and they offered signage limitations associated with that that the r4 zone land only be limited to a maximum of 60 000 square feet of total floor area that there be landscape buffering of 15 feet in width along the residential boundaries which are to the south and the east. They offered restrictions on outdoor lighting and also that no drive-through facilities be permitted on the property. So the staff believes that these use and buffering restrictions are appropriate for the subject property to ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan and also the small area plan and to limit the impact on the adjoining single family and two family residential areas staff would certainly entertain any questions that the Planning Commission has I know this was a complicated case we had half of a hearing already so if there's any questions we can we can help clear up I'd be happy to help mr. Owens thank you mr. chairman yeah Tracy if you could help me clarify this in the staff report on page 4 where you're talking about principal permitted uses accessory uses conditional uses within p1 zone shall be limited to only the following offices offices for veterinarian animal hospitals for that overnight boarding well how's that coming into play I don't think that that's a use that they're they're asking for today they just want a medical office but the when they looked at all of the available available conditional uses in the P1 zone, they said that was the only one they thought, I guess in addition to parking lots, thought was feasible in a small building off, sort of off the beaten track in a local street. Okay. All right. It just, you know, to me it just popped up and I don't remember the discussion before and with assisted living facility and limited space it just seemed kind of odd, but okay. you they aren't requesting that as a conditional use today but yes thank you anyone else on the Commission thank you mr. Martin I guess mr. Martin has our development plan as well as the conditional use and variance requests today okay thank you I love it when you smile at us laughing. There's lots to smile about, isn't there? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the preliminary development plan for this item is on page 4 of your agenda and we have distributed for your consideration conditions on this plan as you can see from the rendering that we prepared for you here is the existing property it's a nice large rectangular piece of property over five acres in size here is the Red River Drive frontage for the property this is the existing school building along with the gymnasium here they are proposing the 3 000 square foot professional office access also red river drive into this parking area parking for the p1 use is in this location they're going to utilize the existing drive expand the parking opportunities to serve what they are proposing to be senior apartments in this location as you can see here they have a community food garden they have greenhouses proposed there's an existing playground in this location and they are proposing in total about 55 000 plus square feet of development primarily in the senior apartments along with the existing school the gym which will be renovated and the medical office they have cleaned this plan up considerably as you can see from your yellow sheet there's still a couple of small cleanup items one of which is reconciling the exact square footage shown in the buildings and shown in their site statistics it's not going to be a matter that impacts their FAR their lot coverage is just being sure that we have an accurate number of what of exactly they're proposing here as i pointed out to you this building for instance is over 17 000 square feet this is only 3 600 we start doing the numbers there's just a a slight discrepancy and staff's not overly concerned with that we think we can we can work that out the variances uh up there as miss wade mentioned have been requested on this plan and along with your need to approve those variances there are of course the need to denote the conditional uses and the conditional restrictions zoning restrictions on the plan as well well the the plan as the zone change did undergo some evolution and concern with staff primarily over the use as you're all aware with the b1 i would add they're adding a concrete sidewalk and access to the park in this location and with that your subdivision committee did not have the opportunity to see this particular revision but your staff is recommending approval of the development plan and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on the development plan at this time any questions and now it's it's my pleasure and come back i get to present the conditional use i like the other i like the other mr martin that I thought you might. As Ms. Wade explained, there are three conditional uses being requested with this plan, along with two variances. The conditional uses that are being requested are conditional uses in the R4 zone. They are the community center, and this is how they intend to repurpose much of the gymnasium in a community center. Along with that request is a child care and adult care facility, again, repurposing this gymnasium for those uses. And then they are proposing to repurpose the school building, the existing school building, into an assisted living facility. And these, again, are conditional uses under your R4. In reviewing these conditional uses and evaluating them, along with the recommendations in your adopted small area plan, We find that these types of uses meet several goals, including the provision of a range of housing for different age groups and different demographic characteristics. These uses will improve the quality of life and health. by having these sorts of community-oriented uses and elderly and young people together. It creates a sense of community as well in a neighborhood setting, which staff believes is consistent with the recommendations of your small area plan that you recently approved. And then the variances that are being requested are landscape variances, and they relate to the P1 and the R4 and obviously zone-to-zone screening, along with when you develop this much parking, there's interior parking and islands required. The Landscape Committee met and heard this request. They agreed with staff that it was very straightforward, that by granting, recommending approval of those variances, that allowed for an efficient layout and a safe layout of the parking without any need for additional screening. There's a lot of green space on the property, as you can see. They're going to have a lot of screening adjacent to the residential uses. And again, there was no need to try to disrupt this parking layout by requiring large interior landscaping that is an aspect of your ordinance. So those were the two variances they requested, and staff is recommending approval of the conditional uses and the two landscape variances as well. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. My name is Rich Murphy with Abby Jones Consulting. And just wanted to let you know we are in agreement with these conditions and restrictions that they've laid out. And I know Abby Jones has worked really hard with the staff to kind of work through this and made a lot of progress. We came to a lot of resolution on this, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have and seek your approval. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. A block or two or more near this proposed development is Trent Village, and that is for a population of over 55. Do you see a duplication of service with what you're proposing? I don't know. I'm with Brian Hubbard, who's the owner-developer. I'm not sure if I... You can bring him up. Mr. Hubbard, come on up here. If you would have it. I don't see any... Can you repeat the question for Brian, please? Mr. Hubbard, would you identify yourself for the record? My name is Brian Hubbard, and I am with Afton Community Development. As I understand your question, it's whether there's a duplication of services with us and the facility that is going in at Trent Boulevard. As I understand that, and I can't speak for them, obviously, what they plan to offer is geared towards special needs populations and not merely elderly individuals. So they're looking at a much more specialized population than that which we are looking to serve. There might be some overlap, but there is not a duplication based on what I understand their project to involve. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you for the time being. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Okay, thank you. We're finished with you then. Back to the Commission for a motion or additional discussion. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of MAR17-16, the Afton Community Development LLC, amended with the recommendations as staff presented. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens, that we approve of PLN MAR 17-16, Afton Community Development, LLC, with the reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? The next, if we could go to the development plan next. Do we need to do the variances? We'll do that after this. All right, okay. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of MJDP 17-35 Melody Village, Unit 3C, Block C, Lot 12, with the recommendations as presented by staff. And moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens, that we approve of PLNMJDP 17-35, Melody Village, Unit 3C, Block C, Lot 12, with the 10 reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on that motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Now we go back to the, first with the conditional use and then the variance. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the three requested conditional use referring to MAR17-16. Second. Okay, Ms. Carolyn Richardson moves, and Mr. Mike Owens seconds that we approve the requested variances there too, as it's indicated, and that this refers to PLN MAR17-16 African Community Development, LLC. Any discussion? Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing now, would you please vote when that comes up on your screens? Thank you. Now the last. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the two requested variances that are referred to by MAR17-16. Second. been moved by Ms. Carolyn Riddensson, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens, that we approve the two requested variances as is referenced by PLN MAR 17-16, African Community Development, LLC. Any additional discussion on that motion? Now would you please vote when that comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Thank you. That's it. We can now move on to, let's see, Metathorpe Senior Housing. Thank you. Thank you. housing LLLP and the property is located at 1447 antique drive the request is to rezone this property from a neighborhood business B1 zone to our high density apartment our four zone the subject property is located on antique drive antique drive actually runs parallel to Leastown Road and well near where Leastown and Main Street sort of changed names at South Forbes so Leastown Road runs to the north and south and Antique Drive is parallel between Burke Road and North Forbes Road it is a public street but it is sort of an access for behind the Meadowthorpe shopping center this triangle shaped property does actually have frontage also along Burke Road and North Forbes about 40 40 feet of frontage it's about three and a half acres of property and the applicant is proposing to rezone it in order to construct senior housing a total of 61 dwelling units of senior housing on the property which is I think about 16 dwelling units per acre for the site the property has been through several zone changes in the past it the first probably was was pretty far back in history but in recent history it was rezoned from B1 to B4 from B4 back to B1 and now there's a request to rezone to a residential zone in each request there has always been some concern by the Meadowthorpe adjoining subdivision so having some interest today is not uncommon. Meadowthorpe does exist to the north and west of the subject property and it does have an ND1 overlay on it. It's primarily single-family residential. To the west southwest of the subject property is all B1 zoning and that is the Meadowthorpe Shopping Center to the northwest is actually B1 zoning but it's multifamily residential along Burke excuse me that's not Burke the road to the north of there and then along North Forbes we have a mixture of residential and commercial uses and then of course across leastown road there's commercial and and then further on forbes and lyle industrials industrial uses so there is a mixture of uses in this area the proposal for residential at this location provides for an opportunity to have a transition transitional use between the existing neighborhood and multi-family along north forbes and in the meadowthorpe area and between the shopping center that exists in addition they are proposing senior housing which is a portion of our community that is growing so in the 2013 comprehensive plan there was information about the 2010 population for 65 population which was 65 years or older and that was 11 percent at that time and it is expected to grow to 17 percent by night by 2035 so there continues to be an even greater demand or need for senior housing for our community because the applicant is addressing that need the staff agrees that they're meeting one of one of the goals and objectives related to expanding housing choices and providing safe affordable and accessible housing for older citizens in addition they're providing for infill and redevelopment at this location obviously the site is vacant and has been for a very long time they're providing a transition as i mentioned between an existing single-family residential neighborhood and also multi-family and commercial to the northeast and the shopping center along leasetown road and they're providing or developing vacant and underutilized land within our community although the b1 that exists there today is consistent with the adjoining zoning that exists in this location it's never developed over the past three decades that it's been either b1 or b4 so that leads the staff to the conclusion that that's likely not the right zone for that location it's not very visible from leesdowne road and antique drive as i mentioned is a not a standard local street substandard and is more of an access to the rear of the shopping center so in this case the multi-family residential will provide some transition between the other uses in the area but also provide access for for anybody that's living there to some commercial nearby, which the staff also felt was a positive aspect of their proposal. In this case, the staff agrees that the proposed low income elderly housing development proposed at this location is in agreement with our comprehensive plan and the goals and objectives cited by the applicant. In this case, they were three. The theme A, goal one C, which relates to safe, affordable and accessible housing theme a goal 2a and goal 3 which relates to well-designed neighborhoods and context sensitive development in an infill situation and then lastly they are meeting theme eagle 1b which has to do with utilizing underutilized or vacant land within our urban service area this recommendation is subject to their their associated development plan related to the proposal and the staff or the zoning committee recommended reviewed this three weeks ago and recommended approval as well happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning at this time any questions for miss Wade thank you thank you mr. Martin no I'm sorry come on I'm you know how it is when you get into i'm just sitting back there yes yeah okay we're going to be looking at i guess the orange sheet this is meadow thorpe community business center unit one amended this is a preliminary development plan so this is just um they're beginning where they're starting with the idea of with antique drive here forbes road lees town road is is down this area here they have the building located here with the courtyard towards the center and their parking is in the drop off in the parking here and along the side here as i said this is a preliminary so they'll if there's any conditions that need to be worked out that can all be done at the time of the final development plan we have typical sign-offs we wanted to resolve the zone-to-zone screening along the the parking lots because the adjacent property is zone b1 there is zone is own screening with this and they show their parking lot going into that zone 15 foot zone to zone screening there are other ways to do reduce the size of the landscape buffer before that zone is on screening so that was one of those items we felt we could work out a final development plan We also wanted to resolve the improvements to Antique Drive at the time of the final development plan to see, as Tracy had said, this isn't quite a road. It's more like an access drive aisle behind the shopping area. So with that, we wanted to, if there's any other questions. Any questions from Ms. Galt? Thank you. Petitioner. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. With me today is Holly Weidman of AU and Associates, and she brought with her Johan Graham. At the beginning of the meeting today, a gentleman, Larry Stallman, asked to speak regards to this project. And I'm happy to inform you that we've met with Mr. Stallman a few minutes ago, and I think we've addressed all his concerns. He may still want to discuss this, but I feel confident that we've addressed his concerns. with that we've reviewed the staff's 11 conditions on the revised staff report we're in agreement with those conditions and at this time we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have any questions good thank you this is an opportunity for the audience to participate so if anyone would like to speak, if this is the time to do so. Anyone would like to do so? Okay. And in that case, I'll close that part of the hearing, bring it back to the commission for discussion and our motion. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Deeming it appropriate that seniors dwell on antique drive, I move for approval of PLN-MAR-17-00027, Mattathorpe Senior Housing, with the conditions and findings of the staff as listed. Second. Okay, Ms. Plumlee moves. Ms. Karen Mundy seconds that we approve PLN-MAR-17-27, metathorpe senior housing lllp with the reasonings and conditions provided by staff any other discussion on the motion there now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens that motion carries we need another motion for the development plan yes ma'am miss plumley thank you um i move approval of pln mjdp 1780 metathorpe community business center for the 11 reasons suggested by staff second okay again miss plumley moves and miss karen monday seconds that we approve pln mjdp 17-80 Meadowthorpe Community Business Center Unit 1 is amended with the 11 reasons as provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. The motion carries, including the part about Antique Drive. Fair enough. The next one is Addison Heller. Okay. Thank you. for property at 2311 Armstrong Mill and 3539 Kennesaw Drive. The application is requesting rezoning from an AU zone as well as a townhouse residential zone to planned neighborhood residential, which is our R3 zone. From R1T, I'll point out that information. We are on page 9 of the agenda and tab 5 in the notebook for the Planning Commission members. the majority of the subject property over 11 acres is currently zoned in an AU zone it's an l-shaped parcel which fronts on the Armstrong Mill outside of Manowar Boulevard there is a small corner of the property or portion of the property that is along Kennesaw Drive that is located in an R1T zone and that's proposed it's sort of a remnant of a previous development but proposed to be rezoned and incorporated into the applicant's proposal. The aerial photograph, this subject property has been used as a single-family home and small farm for quite a long time, and they're actually just proposing to develop it at this point. Adjacent to the subject property is a church, a small Baptist church, Victory Baptist, and And then to the north, northwest is a single-family residential neighborhood. And then to the east is duplexes and multifamily residential along Kennesaw Drive. And then on the other side, to the south on Armstrong Mill, is the Heartland neighborhood. Armstrong Mill Corridor is, for the most part, residential on the outside of Manowar Boulevard, with the exception of the adjacent church and the subject property, which remain AU, and then a few other properties within this general vicinity that also remain in an agricultural urban zone. And those would include the airport's honing signal. I'm not sure what that's called. We've all seen it. What's it called? Oh, Vortec. That's very technical. There's also a utility substation a little bit further out, Armstrong Mill. but this property is very close to the urban service boundary as well. The applicant is asking for the R3 zone in order to develop a mixture of townhouses and single-family residential on the property for a total of 39 dwelling units, which equates to 3.39 dwelling units per acre. This is a request that the Planning Commission has actually heard fairly recently that they denied and the applicant withdrew their application and decided to request a early rehearing and has now followed the normal application process to file in july for our august public hearing today the applicant has indicated that they believe their request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and cited several goals and objectives related to that specifically identifying mixed housing type development because they're proposing both townhouses and single-family residential at this location supporting infill and redevelopment and providing well-designed neighborhoods as well as upholding the urban service area by absorbing vacant or underutilized land in addition the staff believes the planning commission should also consider goals and objectives related to the existing drainage way and creek and extension of Beringer Drive specifically theme B goal 3a talks about incorporating green infrastructure into plans and policies and then and protecting natural resources 3b as well and then working to achieve effective and comprehensive transportation which is the connectivity the staff had previously suggested and is now proposed by the applicant and that's under theme d goal one the staff is generally favorable to the requested rezoning because the residential use is supported by the comprehensive plan and it's varied in addition the residential zone is considered compatible in this location with the r1t and r1e adjacent to this property also this proposed development plan is now consistent with the board of adjustment decisions and planning commission decisions that we discussed earlier this year and those were the approval of the church included part of a cul-de-sac on barrage or drive and the previous request did not include that extension so today that development plan that the planning commission has in front of them does include the extension of Behringer Drive, so it respects the Board of Adjustments decision and reflects the cul-de-sac partially being on the church property. And the Planning Commission made a decision to subdivide the Featherston Farm and in doing so made a reservation for right-of-way for this cul-de-sac. And again, the application in front of you with the development plan respects that previous decision. also the staff is happy to report that the petitioner conducted or concluded a floodplain study and identified the floodplain locations and so we were able to agree with our state that they are in agreement with the comprehensive plan in terms of respecting the natural features of the property this time with that the staff recommended approval to the zoning committee three weeks ago and they agreed and also recommended approval to the rest of the planning commission for today be happy to answer any questions about our proposed recommendation it is on the agenda and the findings are cited there and again it's contingent on the development plan being approved by the planning commission as well be happy to answer any questions questions Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is it who's coming, Ms. Galt or Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin. Okay, Mr. Martin is back. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we have a preliminary development plan before you today. It is on the top of page 10, item B. We have also distributed to you revised conditions on the plan on this lavender piece of paper. You can see that it is a major development plan. It is a preliminary plan 17-77 Harper Woods. And if you hear me inadvertently say Harper Wade Woods, that is because Tracy Wade has a lovely young daughter by the name of Harper. And we've around the office have been calling it Harper Wade Woods. I might slip up and say that. Here we have Armstrong Mill with its intersection at Kennesaw Drive. They are proposing a private street at this time to come through the property, cross what is an extensive floodplain and natural area on the property that you can see as it runs diagonally in this direction, and then they are proposing to bring it down and intersect with Beringer Drive. There are 31 buildable lots being proposed along with the townhouses that you can see in this location. And I know this body is well aware of the tremendous amount of discussion and issues that face this property. And there has been a tremendous amount of work, meetings, and evaluation of this property. A study has been done now on this area to establish the floodplain. And you can see, again, we've highlighted it. There is a 25-foot setback off that, as you all are aware of. You can see that it does impact quite a few of the lots in this location. Part of the discussion that we have had with the applicant, which is something that will have to be worked on at the time of a – and this is a preliminary development plan. We're anticipating a preliminary subdivision plan to follow this, and that will, again, create on the subdivision plan, will recreate this lotting that you see, and we're anticipating that they will also at that time show the townhouses being on single-family lots with access, of course, to the proposed street. These are issues, again, that we expect to address at the time of the preliminary subdivision plan. There is a buffer area that's required under the stormwater manuals that will impact this area that can have an impact on these properties. It is an issue of maintenance. Long-term maintenance is something that has been discussed that we assume will continue to be worked on as the development of this property evolves. they're proposing a trail system along the creek that you can see in this area as an amenity. And it ties into the trail system that's going to exist in this area. This is a public trail system for this part of town. Again, as I've stated, they're proposing 31 lots. Three of the lots, and we've highlighted 19, 20, and 31, are heavily impacted not only by the floodplain setback, But you can see highlighted in orange easements on the property. And there's easements here and here. They extend to the church property. There's a 15-foot easement along this property line. It transitions to a 5-foot easement, having less of an impact on the property in this area, in this area. And then again, there's an easement, a sewer easement here. It's a sanitary sewer. It's a force main. You can see the impact. Again, the buildable area on 1920 and 1931 with the easement, these are issues that staff believes can be worked out at the time of the preliminary subdivision plan. Quite simply, and they're aware of this, they're going to be moving these facilities and changing these easements in order to achieve buildable area, unless of course they can find a way to work around it with a different lotting pattern on that preliminary subdivision plan. The property is heavily wooded. You can see they're proposing to save two very large burrokes. These are quite significant trees. In this location, around the existing house, there are a lot of nice trees that they're proposing to save. There's an area in this, again, these trees, they're going to have to go for them to develop these lots, but they're maintaining a tree protection area all along the creek and the riparian area of the development, again, as an amenity to this development. There's a little bit of conflict with trees up in here. Staff is hoping that on the next plan, there may be a way to preserve one or both of these trees. This one in particular is a very nice specimen, 48 inches. With that, staff is recommending approval of this plan, and as you all are aware, this was a very large issue, and they're showing the construction of the Beringer right-of-way in the cul-de-sac at this location. Part of this right-of-way, of course, it's a reservation, does fall on the church property. That's an issue that's going to have to be resolved in order to get Beringer built in accordance with our regulations. You can see from the conditions. As I stated, that several of these issues that are still outstanding are issues that can be addressed at the time of your preliminary subdivision plan review, at which time, of course, after that, they will begin construction of the required infrastructure. There are a few, these few, there's fewer now than there were originally, but these lots, they will be subject to a finding by this body for access easement to provide their frontage and access under your subdivision regulations. Again, that's something that we anticipate will happen in the future when they bring the preliminary subdivision plan to you. As I stated, staff is now recommending approval of the plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. applicant we will get a PowerPoint if you want one good afternoon mr. chair members of the Commission Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant atchison Heller construction with me today is John atchison of atchison heller construction and Rory Kaley with the a partners anticipated based on your agenda today that we may be much later in the day you have been very efficient and I applaud that but in that spirit I refrained from preparation of a PowerPoint because we are in agreement with staffs recommendations and conditions. I thought Tom's presentation really did a good job of highlighting the challenges of infill development floodplain easements board of adjustment cases that are 30 years old. Pretty much every complication you can have this this shows the challenge of infill development. You all know the history on this plan and I won't belabor it other than to say we very appreciative of staff for meeting with us working through these issues. We know we still have work to do that we will undertake a time of preliminary subdivision plan but we think that this is will be a of an excellent addition to this area of town and while I reserve the right to make any comments and rebuttal as necessary unless you have any questions we'd ask for your recommendation of approval and I appreciate it any questions right now okay thank you anyone in the audience would like to speak either for or have any concerns with this particular plan okay if not then I will put back to the I'll close that part and pull it back to the Commission for additional discussion and our motion mr. chair thank you first of all with what mr. Walburn said as far as the staff working with them let me say you know this time around i think you all worked with the staff very well uh and i would dare say probably if we'd seen this sort of effort the first go around we may not be here today it may be a long ways down the road at this point in time but But, you know, I can make a motion or I'm more than willing to. I think I probably have made two motions on this before, that one was for disapproval and the other one was for this to come back as an early rehearing simply because of your willingness to bring it forth in the right manner. So with that, I'll move for approval of plan MAR17-28 Atchison-Heller Construction Company with the noted conditions and reasons by staff. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Michael and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLN MAR17-28 Atchison-Heller Construction with the reasons and findings by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. Motion carries. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 17-77, Harper Woods, with the revised seven conditions. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLNMJDP 17-77 Harper Wade Woods in parenthesis with the six conditions, six reasons identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Here are none. Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. we all got the people that's right Mr. Wilson, members of the commission, our next item appears on page 10 of our agenda and behind tab 6 in the planning commission's notebooks. It is Dillon MAR 17-30, a request by Greendale Properties, LLC. They are requesting rezoning from an existing B1 zone, which is our neighborhood business zone, to a planned shopping center v6p zone for 1201 greendale road the subject property has frontage on greendale road as well as millennia way Celio Vista Road and Lucille Drive the subject property is to though sorry west of greendale road to the south of Lucille Drive which is a collector Street that runs through the Masterson station area and then we have Celio Vista a local road that comes along the I guess south east portion of the property and then Malundi Way is proposed to connect from Lucille Drive to Greendale Road through the subject property it is built a portion towards the north of the north side of the property as well as along part of the south of the subject property. The property is a little bit of an odd shaped property. I'm not sure how I would describe it. But it is in the north portion of the county, north of Citation Boulevard, which was recently completed. And then Greendale Road was reconfigured in this vicinity. It used to take a 90 degree turn and you can still see it in the aerial photograph through the frontage of the subject property across the road melindy and then here and took a 90 degree turn to the south of this location so it was reconfigured when citation boulevard was constructed the property is completely surrounded by r3 zoning but it is sort of an island of business zoning in this part of the county it is currently a b1 zone but it is heavily restricted with conditional zoning restrictions and that was one of the reasons that the applicant has come come to the planning Commission today to ask for rezoning is the conditional zoning restrictions that were put in place at this location I believe in 2000 no sorry 1994 2001 okay the in 2001 there was a community center concept proposed for this site near citation where citation Boulevard was planned to come in and in In implementing that recommendation of the comprehensive plan, the idea was to make for a mixed-use community center that included residential offices and as well as retail. So the result of the comprehensive plan recommendation was significant conditional zoning restrictions in the B1 zone. The petitioner is now proposing the B6P zone in order to construct a community shopping Center, which is defined as three to ten acres in size. They would hope to include retail uses, restaurants, a bank, off-street parking, as well as on their development plan they do show an automobile service station, too. This is just a view of the subject property. It's graded already for development and has been ready for development since the early 2000s. This is a view from Malundi Way looking towards Lucille Drive. You can see there are existing single-family homes along Lucille Drive, and also two homes that are shown on the development plan as adjacent property, two homes that face the subject property and have frontage along Malundi Way. And those are in the photograph as well here. and then this is a view from malundi way looking towards greendale road and then the houses in the background are across greendale road from this location oops in terms of the comprehensive plan the applicant has cited several goals and objectives that they believe they comply with in terms of the comprehensive plan first the subject property is vacant so they would be encouraging or supporting infill and redevelopment efforts in this area the infrastructure is currently in place for this site so it would be would provide for minimal disruption of any natural features in the area this would allow a community oriented commercial development of the subject property which would better which would result in better designed neighborhood for the nearby masterson station area we create some jobs in close proximity to the existing residential use of the land in this portion of the county and it would have the ability to be accessed by sidewalks bicycles and passenger vehicles in sort of a multimodal aspect and then finally the center will provide accessible community facilities to serve what has been said many times to the staff as an underserved area of our of our community in terms of retail restaurants and other commercial uses so the staff has concluded that the b6p zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan the and would create an appropriate transition between the single-family residential neighbor area the b6p zone one of the benefits is it does have a 50-foot setback from the zone line so where it adjoins single-family residential homes where they would be rear-facing to the site on this i guess southwest side and northeast side there is a setback of 50 feet so that provides a good buffer to the proposed structures on the site the staff did recommend approval to the zoning committee three weeks ago and continue to do so and we found that it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan those findings are on the agenda as well as the staff reports in your notebooks we did recommend this contingent on the development plan with one change and that was reflected in our conditional zoning restriction the staff was concerned about the corner of the property along Lucille Drive here that portion is already I guess the Lucille Drive over and Melinda way already have five or six single-family homes located in that vicinity and we showed that in the photograph and we were concerned about the relationship between this corner of the shopping center and the existing single-family homes that would face the shopping center so the staff recommended a conditional zoning restriction that there be some residential use in this location at that northernmost portion of the property not spec not specifying any specific number of units or square footage for that but just that there would be reflected some residential use to provide a better transition between the single-family homes and the rest of the shopping center the applicant indicated that the zoning committee that they that was one of the reasons that they were proposing this rezoning in the first place so they weren't necessarily receptive to that conditional zoning restriction and they i believe have been working with adjacent some adjacent neighbors to propose some alternative conditional zoning restrictions to the planning commission today and the staff has generally reviewed those although i don't have a handout from mr murphy today so i'm not sure exactly what it looks like in its final form at this point the staff has not changed our recommendation we're still recommending this conditional zoning restriction but i understand they will be asking the commission to review an alternative set again this recommendation for approval of the rezoning is contingent on the development plan being approved for the site. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I did provide a handout to the Planning Commission at the beginning of the hearing, and that was something that our staff received yesterday from the applicant, and it addressed some transportation or traffic concerns that were expressed when they first filed by our MPO staff and whether there would be an increase in traffic in this location, and I believe they are prepared to address that but i wanted the commission to have a copy they were not required to do a traffic impact study for the site though okay happy to answer any other questions any questions for miss ways okay thank you thank you it's uh mr martin of mr oh okay miss go come on good afternoon this is for greendale hills unit 3 this is a preliminary development plan so as tracy explained this was kind of what they're looking towards doing we have greendale road malundi which then connects over here to lucille drive and seal seal of vista road coming in perpendicular to the shopping area We have just a few conditions that need to be for this plan. The first few conditions are our typical sign-offs. We have addition of conditional zoning restrictions, seeing as this is going to come up with some conditional zoning. So we want to make sure that all that information is placed on the plan. Revised plan to comply with Article 12-8B and F. These are dealing with the wall and zoning screening that we will be able to do at the time of the final development plan. So we wanted to make sure that those were noted. And as Tracy explained, we did have the residential component on the previous plan. So we had a discussion question that said discuss a possible residential facing Lucille Drive. So we've left that here because that's still kind of up in the air. And so with that, I'll answer any questions if you have any. Let me go back to this. Excuse me. Anyone else have any questions for Ms. Scott? Then let me clarify. Number 10, you're saying you're leaving it up to us? I was leaving it as a discussion. We did not receive a revised plan, and we've been discussing the idea of putting the residential component with this, because in the B6P you can have a residential component. And so at this time it's how you all want to work with the different conditional zoning restrictions. So once you get through the conditional zoning restrictions, you can remove it or resolve it at time of final development plan. That will be your decision. Mr. Lawrence. Just one comment right now. I think I also have some questions related to this, but I was going to reserve them and let the applicant speak, can maybe beat them up with something to help us get through this. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Any other questions? Okay. Okay. Thank you. We'll hear from the applicant now. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing today Greendale Properties, LLC, which is a company that owns this property that consists of two family members Lois Wright who's with me here in the front row and Robert Downing the third which who's right behind her on the second row they are mother and son the family has owned the property for 40 years Robert was born and raised there on the property they lived there they farmed it and Lois was commenting to me earlier today that when they started out in the zoning process in 2001 they were out on the edge of things now they're in now we're infill we have progressed from being on the edge of town to be an infill in 16 years since the zoning process it was started they have owned this since 1977 as I said for 40 years Tony Barrett is our designer from Barrett partners and Eddie Mesto is here from integrated engineering our traffic who did the traffic analysis and clay angelusi was here from block and lot real estate he he real estate advisors to them he had to leave but leslie lawrence from block and lot who's on the third row has come and she is with us today as well so i wanted to introduce the team we have not all they're not all going to be speaking here i I think we can keep it pretty short. But we filed this, as I said earlier this year, because there is a great need for commercial in this area. And the, if you could put this up on the screen here. Within a one-mile radius of this property, there's 2,600 households, population of about 7,100 people. Within three-mile radius, there are about 12,400 households, population about 35,000 within three miles. And Lott and Block did a little analysis, too. I won't go over this, but this shows the subject property, which is right here. and it shows four more developments coming online which are another 1300 units that are either now under construction or approved to be under construction in the immediate area so this has grown very very quickly in the last few years and the commercial has not kept up with the demand on the property. We're served by two, I think they're collectors, Greendale Road on the east, Lucille Drive on the west, and as you know, hopefully very soon, Lucille will be built all the way from Lee's Town up to, I think it's Spur Road, all making a big connection, so it's going to be a major collector, and Greendale is already a major collector going down and connecting with Citation Boulevard just down here. We have local streets, Malundi Way, which is now stubbed up to this point and it's stubbed down to this point. And as part of this, the developer will, of course, have to complete and connect up Malundi Way, giving a connection between Lucille and Greendale Road. It's well, we've got it well planned, Tony has well planned it, to serve people who walk or ride their bicycles as well as drive their cars into the development here. So you can see many of our units are up near the street as his favorite under current planning theory. Now this property is already zoned B1. It was zoned neighborhood business in 2001 and has been not only planned but zoned to be a shopping center for 16 years. So the logical question to ask me is, well, why are you asking for B6P, which is planned shopping center? Actually, B6P has about the same uses as B1 does, except it has fewer conditional uses. The principal uses are about the same, B1 uses and P1 uses, just like B1. But the number of conditional uses is actually fewer. And similarly, the number of signs, the freestanding signs you can have in the B6P, is actually less in the zone we're asking for than it is in the B1 zone because we're limited to shopping center signs and B6P. B1, every business can have its own freestanding sign. So why do we want to get zone change to put more limitations on ourselves? Well, the reason is because of the conditional zoning restrictions that were imposed back in 2001, before the Great Recession. Back in 2001, when this property was zoned, there were two particular restrictions on this that have been very difficult to work with, and they both relate to requiring residential uses in this property. One of them was that 15% of the total floor area had to be residential, but the second one was that three-quarters of all the B1 uses, three-quarters, had to be in a building which also contained a residential component. In other words, the shop with the apartments above. And as you all know, that has not worked well in Lexington. The track record with that being successful is not good here. It is extremely difficult to get a lender to loan money for a development where you have the mixed use, especially below and above, in a shopping center. And our main goal is to have a viable shopping center to serve this area. Back in 2001, the decision was made that this was to be a shopping center serving the neighborhood. It wasn't to be located out on Citation, which is just down here. It was to be up in the neighborhood so you could walk to it, bike to it, or drive your car to it. But the thing that's holding it back right now is that residential component. So we have asked for the zone change in order that we get a fresh start without the conditional requirements that we do a residential component about it. I'll discuss that one proposed conditional zoning restriction in a minute. But as I mentioned to you and Ms. Wade mentioned to you, we do agree with the comprehensive plan. we've cited in our application many many provisions of the comp plan that calls for this type of development in a neighborhood accessible by walking by bicycle by car that'll serve a neighborhood to provide needed commercial services in residential areas i won't go through those again we did a a traffic analysis just because there was some mention that maybe we should update previous traffic studies one was done in 2001 when this was zoned for business another one was done a couple years ago when there was an application for a shopping area on property below us which is not owned by the family which was i think postponed indefinitely eddie mesta did the study and it shows that our traffic generation in the b6p will actually be less than the traffic generation we would have on the same property in b1 zone because we have a little fewer square footage on this so it'll be actually less than what's already approved on a approved development plan for this property and it also shows which is good that the projections which were used by previous traffic studies which were done by other engineering firms are act have actually been accurate as proven once we got the traffic from citation boulevard those previous traffic studies were very accurate so Eddie is here to answer any questions about this now we had some neighborhood concerns about this we mr. Walburn is representing a group of neighbors that have met with us we've had exchanges back and forth to try to come up with some conditional zoning restrictions on this property because of concerns of the impact the shopping center will have and i'm going to hand out to you what we have worked out with the neighbors to take a look at if you would and then discuss a couple of those items with you so if i could take those down to the end and pass some arena thank you And these are proposed conditional zoning restrictions that we've arrived at through a series of discussions and exchanges between me representing my clients and Mr. Walburn representing his clients who live, a lot of them live down in this area. and we have proposed a number of use restrictions. One is rehabilitation homes, and when I sent this to Mr. Walburn, I had a little bit of a commentary on those, and the staff has asked that my commentary be taken out of my conditions, but said that I could tell you what my commentary was on those. And we just want to clarify with the record, well, Lois is in the medical field. She's a physician's assistant. we wanted to clarify that prohibiting rehabilitation homes refers to what's defined in the ordinance, which is mainly drug and alcohol homes, halfway houses, if you would, and it does not in any way prohibit physical therapy facilities here, which we think would be a real good use on this property. The second is arcades, including pinball and electronic games, and we wanted to clarify that that does not prohibit what is also called an arcade, which is a hallway through a shopping center which gives pedestrian access to stores. That would not be prohibited. Third is self-service laundromats. You won't get any commentary on me on that one. Four is car washes as a principal use. Now, that would allow car washes as an accessory to gas station convenience store, but not a freestanding car wash. fifth is tattoo parlors sixth is funeral parlors seventh is circuses and carnivals eighth is day shelters and I put that in quotes because that's as defined in the ordinance which is basically a homeless shelter it would not prohibit a senior day center or something of that way because that's not the way it's defined we just want to, I think the staff knows this, we just want to clarify for the record and for the benefit of future generations who may read your minutes of this at some point. Ninth is limitation on eight gasoline pumps for gas stations or convenience stores. Now I'll note that one pump can serve two cars, but it's eight pumps. Tenth is one that I put in after discussion with the staff. This wasn't from Mr. Walburn, but on the Lucille Drive area, I had expressed concern about having a requirement of a residential component in this building right here up against Lucille Drive. We understand there's residences here. There's two rental residences right there that are owned by Ball Homes entities and being used for rental purposes. And we understand the juxtaposition of those. but the same token we have a shopping center here and we want people who eventually drive Lucille Drive which now does it ends right there nobody's going to be driving it right now but once it's cut through people will be driving by we want people to be able to know that there's a shopping center here in their area that they can get to from Lucille Drive we have some visibility from Greendale we want to have that visibility from Lucille Drive. So we started talking about this as an alternative to the staff conditional zoning restriction, which is on your agenda about having a residential component here. And this would say within 150 feet of Lucille Drive, no gasoline pumps or drive-through facilities for food service. and I think the staff may have a quibble with for food service but we feel that here that in this location for this property and it hits a couple a few some feet of this on the other side of Melundi as well but there are some drive-through facilities that may be acceptable for instance for a bank or a dry cleaners or something which do not generate the the noise from speakers or trash from fast food operations or traffic they have much more limited hours of operation so that's why we are proposing in town that the condition be within a hundred feet of Lucille Drive which is back here that there be no gasoline pumps or drive-through facilities for food service 11 is regarding lighting that the parking lot lighting would be shoebox style or a style which shields the light source from direct view from other properties which is put on a lot of developments like this. And those would be our 11 conditional zoning restrictions which we agreed to after negotiating with Mr. Walburn. Under B we also agreed to some development plan notes and that is that the maximum height of buildings be 35 feet. In B6P, you can go higher. The limitation in B1 is 35 feet, so we would use the same height limitation that we have now in the B1 zone, 35 feet. Maximum size of a building is 35,000 square feet. I think the concern on that was not wanting us to put a big box retailer here. As you know, the Kroger's now run up to 100,000 square feet, or Walmart's 100,000 square feet. So putting in a 35,000 square foot limitation on size of buildings would deal with that issue. Then we had some screening and landscaping conditions, which we agreed to along Cielo Vista Road, which is right here. we would agree to a from our driveway just to the west there because some of the neighbors are right down here we'd agree to a three foot solid fence and a three foot hedge and one tree every 20 feet in this section and this section along the building here under number four we agreed to a three foot either open fence or a three-foot hedge plus one tree every 30 feet. We also proposed that for this stretch of Lucille Drive opposite the residential up there, that same one as we had in number four down here. This stretch would be up here. And then finally on the second page, we specified that up on Lucille Drive, the zoning ordinance requires five-foot screening. we would agree to average at least 10 feet there along this stretch and minimum of six feet on that area. So those are the conditional zoning restrictions and development plan restrictions which we have worked on. And to be honest about it, my clients didn't want all of these, and probably Mr. Walburn's client wanted more, but we were able to truly work things out and this is a compromise proposal which i think all sides have agreed to on this property the that's really what we have we have a lot of other people who can discuss this and add to this discussion as i mentioned the our overriding concern on this property is that it's been zoned since 2001 without being developed its citation has been completed now for a couple years and and it's really been actively marketed since then and the the big hold back on this is this residential component we're doing this zone change to to eliminate that residential component our goal i think is the same goal everybody wants we want to have a successful shopping center here we don't want to have a vacant lot for another 7 16 years here without supplying the services that are needed and we don't want to have a shopping center that is built and doesn't work because of too many restrictions on it so there are a lot of restrictions on this but we think this can work on this property and make this be a the successful shopping center that we all want it to be so that's our presentation as i said we have a lot of people other people here can answer questions if needed but we hope you'll vote in favor of this and and we hope you'll adopt the conditional zoning restrictions and development plan notes that we have we have handed out to you thank you very much any questions for mr yes mr owens yeah go ahead i'm sorry i think on uh at At the top A, where it says the following uses would be prohibited under conditional zoning restrictions, I don't think you really want the shoebox-style lighting to be prohibited. That's right. Maybe the following, we'd have to come up with another category. That is not what you meant, in other words. That's correct. We want it to be shoebox-style lighting. So we can we can come up with a proper language to do that. Good catch. Mr. Murphy, one quick question, kind of obvious. When you're talking about within 100, 150 feet of Lucille Drive, my obvious question, where does that fall in connection with that building from Lucille Drive? Well, I see a line drawn right there. I think. Is that it? was that it when i was that where when i started talking was that still there it was i didn't see it when i started but there it is the little orange line right there okay thank you sir okay any other questions i have one miss wade and the staff have you all now you've had you've seen this have you had a chance to deliberate enough to see if this is something that they live with would you like us to address that now or wait until if anyone else wants to speak okay well you're right we can wait till we get to someone else and ask him does anyone else here like to speak either far or okay mr walden come before anyone else like to speak other than uh okay good afternoon again mr chair members of the commission jacob walburn i represent several interested neighbors who live on Merluna Drive which is just off the plan the very very bottom down here I think mr. Murphy did a fair job of explaining the negotiation process that went on I give credit to mr. Murphy mr. Barrett and their client sat in a meeting where some very pointed commentary was offered but we're very polite and respectful and still struck a deal so kudos for that we withdraw any objection that we would have to this proposal provided that the conditions that you were provided by mr. Murphy are imposed now my clients because of where they live are less concerned about the Lucille Drive issues and so they take no position on that one way or another and we'll leave that to your and staffs response to that proposal but we do think the conditions as they relate to Celo Vista are very, very important to protecting, screening them from potential headlights, noise, garbage, et cetera. But with that, I'm pleased to report that we have reached an agreement and would withhold any objection to this proposal, provided that those conditions are imposed. Good. I'm so happy to hear that. I know how you are. The system does work sometimes. Any questions for Mr. Wong? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, then we'll go back to the staff then. The staff noticed the same contradiction in Section A and renumbered the version we had so that the shoebox lighting restriction would be a item B under other use restrictions as a number one and then the rest of the handout that mr. Murphy provided would be related to development plan notes that was a renumbered to numbers to letter C the staff would prefer that there be no drive-through facilities along Lucille Drive or that 150 foot area of course on the rest of the property drive-through facilities would be allowed as an accessory use but within that area just right adjacent to the single-family homes the staff feels that it wouldn't be appropriate in terms of the rest of the restrictions typically we offer a reason for the restrictions or a statement related to offering conditional zoning restrictions so the staff would ask if the Planning Commission adopts conditional risk zoning restrictions that we add that the proposed restrictions are appropriate and necessary to protect the nearby residential land use from incompatible uses in the shopping center I can't read a single thing okay on this screen on either one of them on item 10 mr murphy wants it to say or his client does or drive through facilities for food service the staff would suggest striking for food service and that it relate to all drive-through facilities within 150 feet of lucille instead of there being a number 11 the staff believes that should be item b and other use restrictions under conditional zoning restrictions and then keeping the language related to the shoe box lighting and then renumbering the file or lettering the following the text that says the following will be development plan notes and that would be section c instead of b while getting old is really pitiful i can't use restrictions the staff can support the other development plan notes in terms of landscaping building size and and height of the building those aren't a specific concern to us but we do want to make sure there's a restriction or a statement about why the restrictions are necessary And that was at the bottom of the page, Mr. Wilson. Keep scrolling to the second page. And then number 10 is just simply to remove the R food service, that's the second part. Within 150 feet of Lucille Drive, no gasoline pumps or drive-thru facilities. The staff would suggest deleting for food service. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Yes? Yeah, Tracy, so what's the rationale for avoiding all drive-through? Is there something about a bank drive-through or something that would cause concern on Lucille? Drive-throughs in general have the voice boxes or drive-throughs for banks, for ATMs and stuff. There could be constant use, and the entering and exiting along Lucille Drive could just be of a disruptive nature to the single-family residential. if it if residential were included in that building it's the staff's opinion it probably wouldn't a developer wouldn't include a use that was inherently a conflict so we felt that that restriction would have addressed any kind of incompatible commercial use but since the applicant doesn't want to do the required residential we think that at least restricting drive-throughs and gasoline pumps in that general vicinity would be a good idea. Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. Ms. Wade, before you get away with what is being proposed here, would this replace your recommendation number three? Yes. It would. Okay. any other questions for mrs wade okay thank you yes i'm sorry mr lawrence you might be headed that way go ahead clarifying mr murphy i was going to ask if you any of anyone had a question for mrs murphy or anyone else so yes mr murphy you can come back up and answer I get a little bit of rebuttal here. We're in agreement with what the staff's doing except for three little words, which is the three little words for food service on number 10. And I guess for a couple reasons, a few reasons here. We're here today because the conditional zoning restrictions on the property, which were very well intentioned back in 2001, haven't worked. and we appreciate the process we've been through with mr. Walburn's clients and it was after a bit of a rocky start it was a constructive process and we made it through and we worked something out but we are proposing a good number of conditional zoning restrictions on our new use as well so we have a number of restrictions to start with and the concern on the drive-through and it's it's really relates to this building in this little area down here we get the no drive-through for food service we get that because those those things operate pretty heavily they operate late at night they make some noise they make some trash sometimes people and so we we understand the prohibition on that but But we feel for lower key drive-through windows, say if we have a bank that wants to go in here, every bank wants a drive-through facility. Those do not have extended hours. Most of them close down. They're only there during daylight, if that. And most traffic at night, if there's a drive-through, it's going to be going to the ATM. They're going to have a drive-up ATM, which I think the bankers I know have told me is safer than a walk-up ATM for a situation like this. And I think it would be better to have a drive-up ATM, for instance, a bank facility here, than it would, say, to have a walk-up ATM. And that's not a high-traffic business. We've got parking lots there anyway that can have activity after dark. and you can come to an atm after dark but i don't think that's going to encourage a lot of extra activity especially if it's a drive-up atm at this and there's some other low-key uses with one thing we thought of was a dry cleaner something like that that could have a drive-through window again which is not a not a heavy traffic generator not a heavy noise generator it's not a traffic a trash generator or anything like that which we feel would be would be compatible and the reason we're doing this was we just want this to be attractive to that type of use which would serve the neighborhood would perhaps have a drive-through and again help help us ensure that we have a successful shopping center for this neighborhood on that so craven says question yeah maybe tony wants to it's a design question you want take the question we'll find out here in a minute it's not real hard okay on this drive-through he's talking about couldn't you design it so the drive-through is on the side of the building away from the houses well the the approach would either be coming this way so a driver would come around could be on the back of the building or it would have to be facing that way so um yeah it can be i i guess your maybe your most objectionable might be that alignment where you have car lights going into that potentially residence but you the rear or this side probably not a and that would also this one in particular would direct traffic back into the center this one they would have the option to go in either way but so there's a possibility you could design it so that the lights don't shine on those cars and the cars aren't sitting there idling we're already doing the you the hedge and the and the fence along there too so mr this is a preliminary plan and before anybody came in to build something you all would be going over the final development plan as well and could ask those particular questions about the particular user as long as we don't have a conditional zoning restriction that totally prohibits it first miss plumley thank you if you did not put a drive-through through there what would you put if you were restricted well we don't know i mean the the marketing of this property has stalled because of the restrictions we have so we don't have we can't say to you who would be coming in here if we don't have that on there. I just can't speculate who we'd get with or without a drive-thru window. We just want to make it so that somebody who does have a drive-thru window wouldn't be immediately we don't immediately have to say no to them just because you have a drive-thru window. We can say to them now, okay, got a drive-thru window you got to come back through the planning commission they got to approve your plan showing the showing the layout of the drive-thru window and everything like that but you are not totally prohibited from having one you're you're going to get to chance to show it to the planning commission and show your design to the planning commission Mr. Lawrence. Listening to you just now and talking about drive-thrus and so forth, it seems like we're trying to protect neighbors, so to speak, nighttime traffic, excessive nighttime traffic and so forth, as far as food services. And Tracy, you may help me as well. I'm not sure. For the zone that you're asking for, What about liquor stores and drive-thru liquor store? Yes, I think you can have liquor stores in this zone, and I guess they would be allowed a drive-thru. my my conception was that food service where we put in food service as I've gone through this with building inspection before anything you drink is considered food as well because we've had the shaved ice things and all that kind of stuff and those when I used to have to go through this with building inspection those were considered food service anything you drink so we were I think I guess a package store I talked to Ms. Wright and we'd be agreeable to adding food service or package liquor store to that yes. Thank you Any other comments? Any questions? Mr. Chairman, I just have a comment. I'm not going to weigh in on the food service debate at this point, but just following up on what Carolyn had said, I think when you read the verbiage prohibited with these uses, I think the point B, other use restrictions should go before 9 and 10. Okay. Okay, Mike. Yeah, we haven't, I mean, this number 10 about this residential, Tracy, I mean, can we run that, do that on the final development plan, talk about that, and maybe they can work together on that? Someone address that? Were you asking me that question, Mr. Craig? Yes. I think Mr. Martin might be prepared to answer any final development questions. On the development plan, number 10, if you don't impose the conditional zoning that we had originally requiring residential, then there's no need for that condition. B6P allows vertical development and residential above, should they choose to do it. All right, so somebody said that these conditional zones did away with number 3. Yep. Okay, so then 10 goes away? It would. It would. Okay. It could? It would go away, yes. Yes, that was on the development plan due to staff's concern about having a residential component required in this development. Okay. Yeah, he's concerned about the headlights. Any other comments? Any other additional questions? Okay, then I will close this part of the meeting. If I may, I would just like to address briefly again staff's concern about having drive-through facilities in the 150 feet is a reflection of our concern about the residential component and the residential character of the neighborhood. And the applicant has actually answered on behalf of staff. It's a preliminary development plan. They don't know who they're going to get out there. They just want to have somebody out there. And they can certainly, with all that acreage and the ability, plans, as we all know, can be altered and are malleable. And if there's a business that absolutely has to have a drive-through and is ready to come out there and write them a big check, well, they're going to work with them. And staff gets that. Our concern, and why we wanted to restrict that, is our concern about the residential presence out there and the residential aspect of that community. And I would add that if you're a fairly large developer, like a pharmacy or something, and you want a drive-through, you're going to be very much interested in Greendale Road and its proximity to Citation Boulevard and that tremendous traffic flow on Citation. Again, you can see we didn't recommend against drive-throughs on that end of the development. It was on the Lucille Drive and that residential character. in that area. So I just wanted to make that clear that was the nature of our concern. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Riff. I have a question of Mr. Wilburn. The list that was given to us by Mr. Murphy does include these are the things that you all had a meeting about and concluded that these were acceptable to the neighborhood as presented. Is that correct? It is. I should be clear that I don't represent the neighborhood association. I don't report to represent the entirety of the neighborhood. My guys live down here. So in terms of the drive-through proximity issue, not that we're not interested, but we don't take a position on that. Everything else that's on that list was specifically negotiated with mr murphy okay thank you any other questions my sheet is completely messy i'm not sure so is this the official listing now of what we have we're working with i mean we still got this issue of for other for food service i guess that's still one of the issues so we have a couple of choices we can either vote that up vote it down but that's one of the issues that's still on the table everything else as i understand it is okay okay so Can you all see this better than I can? Thank you. And I think Mr. Brewer was recommending moving the striking to 8, 9, and 10, and then putting 9, 10, and 11. Okay, that's right. Okay. Now, the way it's positioned there is with, it does strike out for food service, so that's the way it is on that particular right there. The applicant would like some concessions on that particular piece, so the decision is up to us as to what we would recommend. Understandably, this is a preliminary development plan, and based on what we've even heard here, some design features might be able to take care of that, but that's where we are at this stage of the game. Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Tom, I want to clarify that if we were not to restrict drive-through at this time, that doesn't mean it's necessarily automatic when they come back for a final development plan. Is that correct? It would be reviewed. That would be true. You could review. and we can the proposal at that time and determine whether or not it was appropriate you could okay okay any other questions comments okay then we'll close this part of the hearing pull it back to the Commission and we're ready for a motion of one kind or another Mr. Cravens, I mean Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of, let me get my number here, sorry. It's on page 10. Yep. Of Plan MAR17-30 for the reasons noted by staff, eliminating item number 3 and replacing that with the proposed conditional zoning restrictions provided by the applicant. We're going to change, under item A it would have the first eight restrictions and then there would come item B where they would read the same with the exception of within 150 feet of Lucille Drive, no gasoline pumps or drive-through facilities for food service or package liquor. And then item B would then become item C. Is that clear? I'm hoping. Is someone taking good notes on that? Okay. Okay. It's been properly moved and seconded. I've got a question. Well, just a minute. Mr. Berkley has moved approval for, just a minute. We'll get there. PLN MAR 17-30, Greendale Properties, LLC, with the conditions provided by staff, we're substituting out number three to the conditions that have been presented by the attorney, Mr. Murphy, striking 9, 10, and 11 and inserting applicant to, inserting B at that part, and leaving in within the 150 feet of Lucille Drive, no gasoline pumps or drive-thru facilities for our food services are packaged liquors does that capture pretty much the emotion okay now i think we'll still need to add the c and the language that that tracy had put at the bottom but i've got a comment after that so if you want to clean if you want to go ahead and clean up the motion that's fine that i'm fine with adding that item c though is a development plan note so that would be appropriate with your next motion as opposed to conditional zoning restrictions okay so a and b would be covered under the zone change okay conditional zoning motion and c would be covered under additional notes on the development plan okay okay uh now you yeah so i'm just i'm back i said i wouldn't get away in on on the drive-through food service but now we're getting into listing multiple things. So no food service or no liquor store drive-thru. I don't understand why that's different from a drive-thru cigarette stand, a drive-thru lottery shop. I mean, there's all sorts of drive-thrus that create the same kind of impact on the neighborhood that the staff is trying to avoid. So I don't, personally, I don't see that there's a significant difference between food service and liquor stores and everything else. Okay. My intent there is just to see what they come with. We get another look at it. But I would be happy to let, you know, if the commission wants to vote on that item separate, we can do that. Well, we could, but my answer probably to Mr. Brewer is that all of this has to come back or could come back as a part of the final development plan. that could be hashed out at that time, including the design features as to if there were going to be allowed kind of a drive-through, where would it be located? So those kinds of things I'm thinking would be hashed out at the final development plan. Yes, Mr. Craven. Mr. Chair, just to be clear, what you're voting on right now in the motion is a zone change with conditional zoning restrictions. That's correct. And conditional zoning restrictions cannot be changed at a development plan phase. So in other words, you know, what you put in place here are going to be the conditions on the zone change. The items that are listed under what's now Section C and what the applicant provided are the things that would be listed with a vote on the preliminary development plan. So I don't know if that impacts anybody's thought process on how they want to look at numbers, what are now other use restrictions, you know, one, two, and three, but under the way it was revised. But they are conditional zoning restrictions, so they are going to be part of the zone change vote, not part of the development plan vote. I got you. Okay. Ms. Cravens. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Tracy, if we don't put it in there, I mean in other words this is zoning so if we take out the food server or the drive-through at this point they can't put it in but if we leave it written like this then they could still when they bring their final development plan they could have the flexibility to have that and move it around so forth. Is that the case? Right. You just have to remember that you're going to be bound by, yes, that's the case in this instance. But I just don't want you to think you can come back and change how that's worded at a development plan phase. Right. But they could, I mean, if you take it out now, they can't come back. but they could in their when they're trying to sell their property or rent it or whatever they they can have that flexibility it may not even end up there maybe nobody wants it there but if you take it out they can't at all that's correct okay so i mean i'll go back to my original comment here but with a little bit of elaboration you've got a whole lot of places where you can have a drive-through that are not going to affect the neighborhood and on lucille drive so my view on this is we don't have another bite at this apple as Will described it before, my view is we should take the advice of our expert staff and eliminate the food service. That's not the way I understand it we do have another bite at the apple except for food service or packaged liquor is the way I understand it. Mr. Jones, is that... So if they were to bring a bank branch, for instance, we still could consider a drive-thru in that situation. We cannot for a food service user or a packaged liquor. Within 150 feet of the Lucille Drive. Correct. That's right. Yeah, I'm not trying to eliminate it across the whole development. That's right. So the way I envision this and the way I understand it is we would still have another look at this except for those uses, which wouldn't be allowed. Okay. Yeah, I agree with Will. You could, the way it's written, if a bank comes in there and you all on the subdivision committee see it, you could affect how that drive-through was put there. But if we take it out completely, then we don't have any option on it. And then I also think, in my mind, Lucille Drive will be a more main drive maybe than even Greendale. It looks like to me that Lucille Drive is going all the way out to Lee's Town. Anyone else? So now let's go back to the original motion. that original motion, you stick the intent in your original motion covers what we just got through discussing here. That's the way I understood it. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion passes 8-2. next is the development piece. Move for approval of plan MJDP 17-84 with the nine revised conditions, eliminating number 10. and what about the c is uh that i guess would be uh number 10 add additional notes to the development plan and then tracy your language that was shown earlier if you want to i don't have that language up there so up either okay i think the way tracer had written it is the proposed restrictions are appropriate and necessary to protect nearby residential land use from incompatible uses in the shopping center that's associated with the conditional zoning restriction right so that was yes that would be associated with the incorporated already i think yeah okay so not this one no right okay so that's a part of c no the the what what she wrote out on in hand before she's saying that that is a part of the conditional zoning okay that we just already voted on um i didn't originally make that a part of the motion because i thought we were putting it with the development plan but but if we need to revisit that, we can. Yeah, let me, I'm a little bit lost. So what we're doing here is approving the nine conditions and then adding Section C, which is the statement that Ms. Wade put in. That's correct. Do you need a motion to amend? Yes. We'll let him do it if he could. Are we going to vote on the development plan first, or not? Yes, let's vote on the development plan, and then we'll do the other part. Okay. Okay, so you've got the, it's been properly moved by Mr. Berkley and seconded by Mr. Cravens that we approve PLN MJDP 17-84, Greendale Hills Unit 3, with the nine reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? I'm sorry, did that include adding the notes? Item C. Yes, adding item C. Add notes on development plan per applicant's handout. That's correct. Okay. Now adding item C is the additional part, and that item C was what you just put up on the screen? No. No, wait a minute. C involves five restrictions related to height, building size, and landscaping. It does not have to do with the handwritten note I wrote on page two. Okay, so just simply the motion will include that adding item C? That's correct. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, next. We need to revisit the zone change to add that conditional use language. The staff assumed you were incorporating that with the conditional zoning restriction, the reasoning behind it. And that's a correct assumption, but I don't know if we need to do anything. If you assume that you got that down in the minutes, then in that case we're in good shape. Okay. Thank you. I guess that takes care of that. Here's a, and this is just other business. We need a motion to amend the Planning Commission's meeting and filing schedule. We'd like to, and here's the motion. I'd like someone to read it if they could put it in. that motion to Mr. Chair this is a motion to amend the Planning Commission's meeting and filing schedule we need to schedule a public hearing on Thursday August 31st 2017 at 1 30 p.m. in the council chambers of the urban county government Center in order to take public comment on the draft of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. Okay, that's the motion. Do I get a second? Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Mr. Cravens that we amend the Planning Commission's official meeting and filing schedule to schedule a public hearing on Thursday, August the 31st, 2017 at 1.30 in the council chambers of the Urban County Government Center in order to take public comment on the draft 2018 comprehensive plan goals and objectives. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Chairman Wilson, because we didn't have that on the agenda, you all just have to take a hand vote. Okay, all those in favor, raise your hand. Okay. Thank you. Ayes have it. Thank you. Any other business to come before the body? Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll look forward to seeing you all at 1.30 next Thursday for the public hearing. Thank you. Without objection, the meeting is adjourned.