visited our senior center. Oh, absolutely. I'm sure you have. We actually have a volunteer that goes there weekly, and him and a member of our staff are there to provide counseling. So, and this program is mainly done with volunteers, correct? It mainly is, yes. We have, there's a skeletal crew that provides services to the 30 counties, but we have roughly 100 volunteers throughout our 30 counties that provide services. Now some of those individuals are currently working and they're volunteering through their employer and then we have individuals who've retired and they've wanted to give back to their community and they do that by coming in and working with clients here in the office or at like the senior center here in Lexington, helping people to navigate the Medicare system, compare their Medicare options and providing a great deal of education. Well, I think the important thing is to get the word out there. Yes. And then on our screen, I believe we will have all the contact information, phone numbers, how to, so when seniors, and I do believe that our seniors in our community watch RGTV3. Yes. Now it's channel 185 on cable, but I do believe they watch that and they'll have the information and if they're curious hopefully you'll be swamped with calls. Yes, we hope so. And we can help as many people as we possibly can. Yes, I hope so. We are getting ready to go into Medicare open enrollment that starts October 15th and ends December 7th. That is their time of year to compare that Medicare prescription drug and the Medicare Advantage plan coverage. It's very important that they compare. Usually when we meet with individuals at our open enrollment events or we're working with them one on one, usually about 85 to 90 percent of the time there is a cheaper policy that is better for them that covers their medication, has limited restrictions on the medication. It's really important to come. I'd like to welcome all of those in the audience. I'd like to welcome all my commission members and the staff as well. With that, we'll go to the minutes of September the 28th. Your minutes have been circulated, so we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair. I'd like to move for approval of the minutes for September 28th, as corrected. Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. I'll do it without a second then. It's been moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Mr. Mike Cravens, that we approve the minutes of September 28, 2017 in a discussion on the motion. Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Minutes approved. Any postponements or withdrawals? Okay, moving right along. I'll turn it over to you, Ms. Wade. Do we have any abbreviated items? Yes, sir. I believe there are a few items that the staff believes are eligible for abbreviated hearings today, and that means that they are recommended for approval both on the zone change and on the associated plan, as well as the applicant is agreeing to the staff's recommendations. The only question would be whether there are people here in the audience who would wish for that item to have a full public hearing in which they spoke. So I will read these items, and we'll see if there's anyone here interested in having a full hearing, which means you would be interested in speaking. The first item appears on page one. It is item one, Chris and Jenna Walker is the applicant for MAR17-34, and this is a petition to rezone property at 4907 Tates Creek Road, and it has an associated preliminary subdivision plan with it entitled Urban County Government and the Gardens of Heartland, Unit 1 amended. Is there anyone present who would like to speak regarding this zone change and plan? And at this point, you just need to signal to us that you are interested in having a hearing. Is that your indication? Yes, sir. Okay. The second item appears on the bottom of page two and continues on to page three. And this is item two on the agenda. It is MAR17-35, a request by Anderson Acquisitions, LLC. and that is for property at 2050 Newtown Pike. They're requesting a rezoning from AR to the ED zone. And the associated development plan is Winburn Land Company. I would ask if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to have to speak to this case today. Seeing none, I believe that would be our first abbreviated hearing this afternoon. And the third item appears at the bottom of page four of your agenda. And it is PLN MAR17-37, and that's an application by Jason L. Justice for a zone change for property at 6800 Manowar Boulevard, and that's a portion of that parcel. This also includes a conditional use permit and variance associated with the zone change. And the associated development plan appears on page 6, and that is called Ashford Oaks Village and Meadow Oaks. I would ask if there's anyone present in the audience who wishes to speak about the zone change at 6800 Manowar Boulevard. Are you all here for that case? Okay. The question would be whether you intend to speak to the Planning Commission about that item. Object or support it? Okay, that's fine. That's fair. That is fair. So at this point, we would have one abbreviated hearing. Okay, then we'll start on page two, Anderson Acquisitions, LLC, Zoning Amendment, and Winburn Land Company. Okay. I think they can see it. Ms. Wade. Yes, Chairman Wilson, members of the commission. Our first item appears on page two and then can be found behind tab two in your notebooks. It is PLN MAR 17-35, and this is the request by Anderson Acquisitions, LLC. They are requesting a rezoning from the agricultural rural zone to an economic development zone. This is for property at 2050 Newtown Pike, and the property is a little between seven and eight acres in size. the property is located about mid-distance between two arterial roads in our in our community and that would be between Newtown Pike here's our subject property 2050 and Russell Cave Road to the east so the subject property is located in the expansion area and specifically expansion area three at this location it is bound to three sides to the west the north and the east by existing economic development zoning and then to the south across the interstate which is high 64 and 75 is the Windburn subdivision as well as the Griffin Gate Hotel and golf course so across the interstate we still have agricultural zone zoning for the golf course and then in this location directly across it's R2 which is a residential zone just also in the vicinity we also have a commercial or interstate oriented development at the interchange of Newtown Pike and the interstate that is a mixture of hotels and restaurants and gas stations as I mentioned the subject property is located within the expansion area and the expansion area master plan which was adopted in 1996 did recommend economic development land use for this location not just the parcel but also the adjoining area which was rezoned in 2003. There's a smaller version of our zone map. The subject property there has been some looks like maybe core drilling or something on the subject property to find out or maybe taking down trees and mulch piles is probably a better read of what those files are but this was taken from aspiration drive aspiration drive is the local street that provides frontage for the subject property and it is accessible via providence parkway destiny way and then aspiration drive this is a view of the what is currently the termination of aspiration drive looking towards russell cave road and then looking towards the the frontage of the subject property. Since the applicant provided a justification that did address the 2013 comprehensive plan as well as the land use recommendation from the 1996 expansionary master plan, they mentioned several goals and objectives which they felt were being met by the rezoning to ED at this location, specifically mentioning theme C, goal 2, related to fostering success and growth of large employment sectors, which the ED zone can accommodate. In addition, providing for rezonings of vacant land within the USA boundary, which does meet theme E, goal 3, and as well as goal 1. And the applicant also mentioned in their justification specifically that the comprehensive plan also addresses the need or supply for jobs infrastructure and that that infrastructure, that land, be shovel-ready. By rezoning the subject property, it could be shovel-ready within about six months. Although our aerial shows still farmland, we know from the site visit that the roadways are built to get to the property, and then sewer is going to be available to the property in short order. The one thing the staff would mention in terms of our recommendation is that this property is located within the Royal Springs Aquifer, and so the staff made a recommendation for conditional zoning restrictions to restrict some of the more hazardous materials uses for the subject property, and that is consistent with the conditional zoning that was adopted on the rest of the ED land in this vicinity. The staff and the zoning committee three weeks ago recommended approval of this rezoning, and the findings are available on the agenda today as well as the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Any questions for Ms. Waite? Thank you. Thank you. Is the development plan old? Okay. Mr. Martin always hides from me. Good afternoon. The preliminary development plan and preliminary subdivision plan that you see before you today with this zone change is on page three of your agenda. major development plan 17-97, the Winburn Land Company, we have distributed to you on this lovely orange paper, revised conditions, celebration of the season. Thank you. This is, as you can see, a very simple preliminary subversion plan, preliminary development plan for this property it is basically this remnant rectangle that miss wade has described to you the interesting thing about it is its name of course being the winburn land company because it was associated with the development of the winburn subdivision separated by the interstate the key to this particular plan and development of course is the fact that providence parkway is under construction which will provide the collector street in this area for the ed development as well as aspiration way which is completed up to this point and this is the local street system that supports this these proposed developments in relationship to to providence parkway of course this was the insurance area that was recently approved on a final development plan by this body we have very very few standard conditions that you can see and that is your regular sign offs that you have on a preliminary plan and then several items that can be cleaned up on a final development plan and it's important to note that in an expansion area at the time of the final development plan they are going to be submitting reports that are required by your eamp that will address design address infrastructure and that sort of thing that's always done at the final development plan stage and that is if you look at six to note the timing of completion of frontage along aspiration way shall be determined at final development plan again it terminates here when they develop this property staff would anticipate that they would be constructing that along there because eventually of course it's going to serve additional properties The same is true at the sanitary sewers. I know you all have heard this story many times. The new regional pump station is out under contract. They've been pursuing easements design, so it's going to be online sooner than later. Meanwhile, and again this will be addressed at a final development plan stage, they are utilizing an existing pump station out near Newtown Pike in the existing development, which was upgraded in recent history. So able to accommodate some of this new development out here before the new line goes on station. With that, there's one other little interesting condition. Denote timing to remove the platted 300-foot building line. In order for them to purchase this property, they had to platt it. Well, it was agriculturally zoned, so they had to use an agricultural setback. So there's a 300-foot building line running down the middle of this property. They're aware of that, obviously, and they know that they'll have to amend the plat and remove that building line. We anticipate that they would do that at the time of their final development plan. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Applicant? thank you mr chairman i'm dick murphy here on behalf of anderson acquisitions llc rory kaylee is with me here today too and we are agreeable with the staff reasons for approval and the conditional zoning restrictions and the development plan recommendation that mr martin has given you any questions for mr murphy okay and of course we had no one here that objected to this good thank you uh with that i'll close that part of the commission bring it back here for a motion mr owens mr chair i'll move for approval of anderson acquisitions llc zoning map amendment and Windburn Land Company's Zone and Development Plan, Plan MAR17-35, with the three noted reasons by staff taking in consideration the use restrictions as well. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we approve PLN MAR17-35 Anderson Acquisitions, LLC, with the three conditions noted by staff, and with the restrictions as also noted. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 17-97, Windburn Land Company, with the revised eighth condition. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, second by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLN MJDP 17-97 Winburn Land Company with the eight revised conditions noted by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we move back to page one. Chris and General Walker. Ms. Wake. Good afternoon. Our next item is on page one of the agenda and is in tab one of your notebooks today. It is PLN MAR 1734, which is a request by Chris and Jenna Walker for a rezoning of 4907 Tates Creek Road. This is approximately half an acre of property that's being rezoned. Although as we get further into the presentation, I think the commission will understand there's actually two lots part of their plan. but only one was necessary for needed to be rezoned the request is to rezone from an agricultural urban zone to a single-family residential in this case the R1D zone the subject property is located on the west side of Tates Creek Road on the west side of Tates Creek Road and it comes at it sort of an angle from Tates Creek Road and then also intersects or touches Sarin Drive so the subject property was formerly the driveway to a farm that continues and our larger map shows it pretty well has a driveway that accesses from Sarin Drive currently and continues down and abuts the Jessamine County line and that would be the scoby property in the 19 excuse me in the 2000s 2007 maybe the the government the city purchased this frontage or this part of the driveway and completed sarin Drive so the part in front of the Planning Commission today was again formerly a driveway and it was transferred to the government at that time in order to complete the road and then it was the driveway was terminated from tates creek road the tates creek corridor is primarily residential in character outside of man-of-war and the subdivisions in this general vicinity include heartland which is across tates creek road the gardens of heartland which are to the south of the subject property mackatee run which is across also tates creek road kimberlin hills pinnacle and then veterans park all of these subdivisions are in a single-family residential zone either R1C or R1D. The petitioner is proposing an R1D zone which is compatible and consistent with the other parcel they own so although there's R1C to the north the other parcel they own is in an R1D zone and it's to the south and east of the subject property both parcels are currently vacant and the ad here's the existing drive are what was the driveway from Tates Creek Road looking towards Sarin Drive and Heartland Parkway which has an intersection and then looking back towards the north towards Manowar Boulevard and there's our sign so the applicant is hoping to consolidate the two properties and then re I guess consolidate and and reconfigure the lot so that one lot faces Tates Creek Road and one faces Sarin Drive their justification for the rezoning was that the existing AU zone is inappropriate and the R1D zone is appropriate and the staff reviewed that justification not well we did not review a justification related to the comprehensive plan because that was not offered by the applicant and in this case the staff agrees that the appropriateness argument is is the most appropriate in this location the residential zone that they're proposing is consistent with the adjoining zoning on their other parcel in addition single-family is compatible in this location obviously the other single-family neighborhood surrounds and au zoning is not appropriate at this location primarily because it's a half an acre of property and it really could not be utilized in an agricultural manner but secondly the au zone is considered a holding zone until urban services are available for the subject property and in this general vicinity most of our urban services have been available since the mid-1980s but the last piece the sarin drive piece has been available for about a decade now. The staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning, as did the zoning committee three weeks ago, and we would be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Martin has your point. Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary subdivision plan, is on page two of your agenda and once again we have passed out revised conditions to you on this particular plan. Again this is a preliminary subdivision plan it is located at the intersection of Sarin Drive and takes Creek Road again you can see here delineated the old right-of-way that existed at this point it is somewhat of an odd configured piece of property I I would like to make something very clear. It's very important. This is not part of the zone change. This is not part of this preliminary subdivision plan. This is not part of the owner's property. This is here for reference. This belongs to the Gardens of Heartland. It's an HOA area. I want to make sure everybody understands that and it's clear. It's just this. These two lots and this proposed configuration is to allow, when you approve the zone change, the construction of two single-family homes. We have very standard sign-off conditions for a preliminary subdivision plan that you can see, a couple little cleanup conditions. They have some zoning setbacks that are not applicable, don't need to be shown on the plan, the notations just need to be removed. We are requiring that they document the Department of Highway's approval of access takes creek road there is an existing access to this problem and they are proposing to use it of course staff is always concerned about access to takes creek road tremendous amount of traffic and you have a turn lane here with a lot of movement onto sarin drive so we want to document that that is something that the state of kentucky department transportation will approve for this particular property they are proposing a driveway in this location in this area on the plan that lines up with the existing street across the street to serve this particular property and with that staff is recommending approval of the plan as did your sub I'm pardon me your subdivision committee did not because at the time the plan needed revisions to meet the requirements of preliminary plan so this is a revised plan that staffs recommending to you Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, Mr. Ahns. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, one thing. On this piece of property, it appears from here that there's equally spaced lines going on. Yeah, all of those. What's the purpose of those? That's the right of way. The perpendicular lines that equally, it appears, yeah. That's a lot. No. It looks like lots. Every inch and a half or so going the whole length of that property, there's one. To me, it looks like there's an equally divided lots through there. Am I not seeing something? Am I imagining something? Well, actually, this is a proposed lotting system. That's why it's a preliminary subdivision plan. There is an existing configuration, but it's primarily a remnant piece. here and the right-of-way that they purchase the existing configuration is what then uh it's approximately like this right away and then this but i'm sorry the the perpendicular lines come back here you can see it best right here yeah well it looks like all one there but on that there's actually two separate pieces of property the one that zoned a u but every inch or so there's a division that going from the green dotted line up to the property line this way that that's one right there well there's contour lines and there's easements there's easements all over the project i'm not following what from the green dotted line up to the black line here there's one yeah you mean these lines yes that's just to highlight the area that's au okay just so you could see it it clearly okay this is just the au area i'm sorry you're asking what we colored in okay oh yeah that's just to show you the au that's that's fine okay okay yeah no these aren't lots thank you for the clarification oh thank you i'm sorry it took me so long to figure out what you were asking me i'm i'm looking okay any other questions for mr mark i was looking for serious lines those weren't Any other questions for Mr. Okay. Applicant. Good afternoon. Abby Jones, Abby Jones Consulting. We're satisfied with staff's presentations. Basically, this is an infill opportunity for some underutilized land and would turn into two nice custom homes, so we're excited about the recommendations from staff for approval at this point. we're glad to answer any questions you may have mr. Penn has a question for you miss Jones if where that entrance is going to come out on Tate's Creek Pike would that stacking line come back that far where that entrance is well the exact location would have to be approved with construction drawings to the state and they generally like to keep existing locations but they have the they reserve the right to say well we need to move it back 50 feet if they think it's safer to move it back 50 feet I realize this is preliminary development plan I realize that but what I was trying to look at is is the distance of the stacking line I know that's a single-family house which isn't going to generate the traffic that all those lots mr. Owens was talking about so that's just a question I had is can you have a driveway that comes out on a a stacking line is my question the it has been done before i don't know exactly what the state's going to want when we get into the construction plans any other questions okay thank you i think we had some people that indicated they wanted this particular agenda item pulled no wait sir which one was it that you are looking for this is this is on the uh chris and jenna walker okay if you all chris and jenna okay good afternoon members of the planning and zoning commission my name is ray depa and I'm the president of the Woodfield Homes Association, a neighborhood consisting of 111 homes adjacent to this proposed rezoning request. We're immediately to the north of that. I'm not here to endorse or to oppose this project, rather to gain more information about the development and to express some concerns about the impact of this development on the homeowners and our association. First of all, what consideration has been given by the developers to the drainage issues of stormwater runoff? Our neighborhood resides in the West Hickman Creek Watershed Basin. Stormwater runoff flows from several miles upstream from hundreds of homes and winds up in a large retention pond at the corner of Tates Creek Road and Forest Lake Drive. Thanks to a stormwater quality grant given to us by the city of $100,000, and our contribution of $25,000, we have rehabilitated that pond to better handle the rapid runoff of stormwater. Without that retention basin or pond, dozens of homes downstream from that basin would be seriously threatened by floodwaters. Even with the pond, a number of homes downstream from the pond have come perilously close to flooding during heavy storms. It appears that this proposed development would drain into that creek below the retention basin or pond, potentially exacerbating the flooding threat to homes in our association and beyond. Bottom line, that small creek below that retention basin simply can't handle any more water. And we wish we had some pictures of some of the flooding threats that occur down there to our members. On another matter, although this development would not be in our subdivision, it would adjoin us in what consideration has been given to the nature of the construction of these homes. Will it complement the houses in the adjoining neighborhoods in style and appearance? And I'm still a little confused about the number of lots. I guess we're talking about two, but is there room for more in this? Once you grant the rezoning request, will there be more in there? And regarding traffic, even though there are just two lots we're talking about now, I would invite each and every one of you to show up, morning rush and evening rush, and stand at the corner of Forest Lake Drive in Tate's Creek or Sarin Drive in Tate's Creek and watch the game of Russian roulette in the traffic. That speed limit is 55 miles an hour down that state road. Most of those cars go faster than 55, but getting out of Forest Lake or out of Sarin drive is hell to pay, quite frankly. And adding another entryway into Tate's Creek from there, I think, is asking for a lot of trouble. There are legitimate safety concerns to discuss here. So thank you for the opportunity to address our concerns. We respectfully ask that you give consideration of those items before taking any action on this zoning request. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this? Yes. Good afternoon. My name is William Madden. I live at 1004 Red Rain Circle. We back up to what is part of the area being rezoning request is in for. I hear to voice concerns about three issues. As Mr. Depa indicated, the stormwater runoff, the property that is part of this overall development plan, sits about 15 to 20 feet below the road surface at Tates Creek and Seren Drive. In other words, the property drops down. It rises back up to what is the existing driveway, and then drops off again into the creek. Frequently, with rains of any magnitude, we have water back up out of the creek into our yards. So the hard surfacing of the additional area is going to cause additional runoff into that creek bed and further downstream to the existing detention ponds and onto the other creeks downstream. That's a primary concern. The secondary or an additional concern is the entry point on Tates Creek Drive. To your question, I believe it was Mr. Wilson asked, does that stacking lane back up that far or traffic turning from Tates Creek onto Sarin? And to the existing entrance, yes, it does. And if that existing entrance is used or if it is not relocated, that existing entrance is going to cross two stacking lanes for traffic that is outbound, turning into Heartland, and turning onto Sarin Drive. That's in addition to two lanes of traffic at 55 miles an hour. So that entry point is going to, of necessity, need to be moved for safety purposes. as well as the Sarin Drive entrance. I could not see the gentleman's designation where they're talking about putting that, but it's going to cause traffic congestion on Sarin Drive as well. I guess the questions that I've got is, are there any water studies that are part of this that can be disseminated to the people that join this that are going to be impacted by the additional runoff, and are there any traffic impact studies that have been done to this point. I'll make one other technical notation. The entry point on Tates Creek, the existing entry point on Tates Creek, has been designated as a rezoning sign on that property. that property though is not part of the rezoned area or area to be rezoned it is further down tates creek 50 to 100 feet that's all i have thank you thank you anyone else like to speak to this particular agenda item okay now uh it's time yes ma'am if you would come up and I think there are several issues, drainage being one, number of lots, and again the traffic issue related to the turning into Sir Ron Drive from Tex Creek. Yes, it is definitely two lots. That is all that we would be allowed to do. And geographically, with the number of easements that are on the two properties, I don't see how people could change that configuration. And these are, again, single family. they're not apartments they're not townhomes they're not duplexes they're single-family custom homes okay the I guess I'll speak to the traffic first traffic studies are not required for projects that have more than or less than a hundred additional trips per day I believe is the threshold and so we're talking about two households so this falls well below the threshold for a traffic study requirement in the city regulations my business does do a large number of traffic counts and studies and things and this is less than five or ten trips a day at the most that we're talking about for two single-family locations probably less unless you're like my neighbor that has five kids go into a soccer game at every half hour trying to get a joke in but it didn't work very well the so that was one thing I wanted to say on the traffic studies is it's well below the threshold for that requirement as far as the driveway location I'll start with the easier one which is Sarin Drive we placed the driveway lining up with the side street I believe that was the request that was made of us at the technical committee we're glad to put the sarin drive driveway location at exactly where it's most appropriate for the approval of the traffic department but i believe the location shown is the location that they desired for the location on tates creek road um i'm sure casey would have strong opinions about where it needs to go and i know that randy feltner over at the the district office is going to have real specific ideas as to where that driveway needs to go but this is again a preliminary level document at this point so we don't have that exact location but it will have to get approved at a very high level with thorough scrutiny the drainage is something else that's a little bit less defined again on a preliminary plan compared to construction drawings but all of the different easements for the stormwater issues are shown on the plan and we are we have to maintain existing drainage ways we're not blocking off any water going into any ponds we're continuing routes of water to those areas and any and all regulations for stormwater would have to be approved during the construction plan process so it's just not to the step yet where hydrology report would necessarily be required and honestly the requirements for individual single-family permits are a little bit different than for a large subdivision. I don't know if that fully addressed the questions. We'll find out here in a minute. I'd like to call the neighborhoods back up. You've heard what the petitioner, I mean what the applicant has indicated. Do you have any other questions or thoughts? I'm not an engineer or a hydrologist, But when you're putting driveways and roadways in, water's going to run off, and it's going to dump into that creek. And that creek can't handle anymore. The water gets really perilously close to the homes right now, and we put more water in there. And the retention basin can't handle anymore than it's handling now. I wish you all could go down there during a heavy rainstorm. I mean, it's really problematic. And I didn't hear anything from this lady that assuaged any of our concerns. Water's got to go somewhere, and it's going to travel a lot faster and a lot swifter on paved streets. That's my engineering opinion. Well, that's fair enough. This is good enough for us. Mr. Martins, I thought I'd take this opportunity. As you all well know, and this is for the benefit of our fellow citizens, we do have engineers on staff. And as you all read the conditions of this approval, it states the urban county engineers acceptance of drainage and storm and sanitary sewers. As you all well know, these are going to be reviewed. The construction plans are going to be reviewed. And I would add that the very same entity that awarded the stormwater grants is part of the review. They are on the technical committee. And at technical committee, there were no concerns expressed about the impact of two single-family homes on the lot on the infrastructure. And that includes stormwater, sanitary, drainage. I would add that relative to the Department of Highways approval of access on Tates Creek Road, you all have authority over this preliminary subdivision plan and the final record plan, and you could restrict access to Tates Creek Road if you chose to, if you felt like it was a safety issue, particularly in this location, you could restrict it. That would require them to utilize an easement out to Sarin Drive to access this lot. but I mean that that would be an acceptable solution to address the dangers on Tate's Creek if you if you feel like that is very legitimate concern just wanted to let you know that thank you I'll now ask any of our Commission members that if they have questions of either the applicant the citizens are the staff mr. Moran's your turn yes mr. Lawrence thank you I i guess tom or tracy um this lot that we're talking about is half acre to six tenths of an acre correct check the exact we're looking at uh just under half an acre here and just under half an acre here okay so the whole triangle that we're talking about and what i'm hearing we're going to put two lots? Two lots. Two single family lots. Okay. Does it include the rest of the triangle there? No. I've tried to stress that in my presentation. Unfortunately, it got highlighted, but it was not a part of this. So we're talking about two lots on six tenths of an acre? You said... Two lots on one acre, half acre apiece? Roughly. A little under. All right, Ms. Plumlee. Okay. Anyone over here have any? If I could clarify just a little bit, the zone change itself is only a half an acre, although, again, they have another lot that's already rezoned, so that gets to what Mr. Martin was mentioning. You have about an acre of property, but only a half an acre needs the rezoning. Any other questions from the commission to? Yes, ma'am. I just thought it might be helpful to share. My client says he does have email correspondence from the state that the single-family driveway location is acceptable out to Tate's Creek, though the exact location of it, left or right, is something that they don't have in writing at this point in time. But as far as having a driveway for a single family lot, there is correspondence to that effect already in place. It's not just something that we will be providing in the future. That document does exist. It's just a matter of getting a copy. Okay. Good. Any other questions, comments? A question that you can help identify. You're talking about a portion of the drawing down here that is not in the development area. Could you show me again? I didn't see what you were talking about. This area right here is not part of this existing. It's part of the rezoning issue. But that southern. It's not part of anything they're going to be doing. It's not a part of their project. Okay. Okay. Any other questions from the. And please note too this is a preliminary development plan which means that there's more work to be done and some more specificity that has to be added. It's actually a preliminary subdivision plan. So the next stage for the applicant would be a final record plan. And so that's got to come back here again anyhow. A final record plan will come back to the commission. We'll have a chance to look at what they've done and how they've put the specifics in at that time. Any other questions? Now, Ms. Plumlee? Yeah, I have a question for legal. We can still restrict a driveway. Yes or no? You can, but I think Ms. Jones, Ms. Abby Jones, has told you that the state has approved it. They just haven't approved the exact location as of yet. But you all can still restrict it if you choose to. But it will still be a driveway onto Tates Creek with 55 miles an hour, new repaved road. Most people drive much faster. Turn lanes. Well, according to what the state said, yeah, there would still be that access point, but you all can still restrict it if you choose to. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, then we'll close this part of the hearing and we'll bring it back to the commission for our additional discussion and our motion. Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, I would move approval of PLN MJ SUB 1754. 34. 54. I'm sorry. We need to take the zone change first. Okay. The motion for the zone change first. Zone change for page one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Move approval of PLN MAR 1700034, Chris and Jenna Walker. for the reasons recommended by staff. Do I have a second on that motion? Yes. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Frank Penn, that we approve PLN MAR17-34 Chris and Jenna Walker with the conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on that motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion passes it. continue okay mr chair move approval of PLN MJ SUB 1754 urban county government the gardens of heartland for the 12 reasons recommended by staff changing number 10 to restrict driveway easement to sarin drive which would mean no no entrance on taste thank you i need a little help on that is that legal she's saying to restrict driveway entrance to saran drive there would be no Are you trying to restrict the driveway access to Tates Creek? It'd be easier to say it that way, I think. Okay. Or to denote that. To Tates Creek. Okay. Okay, now let me make sure I got that. To restrict the driveway entrance to Tates Creek. No, there would be no entrance on Tates Creek. That's what I'm saying. to restrict the drive this to restrict the driveway entrance on to tates i think it would be best to say to denote there will be no access to tates creek road okay okay do i have a second on that motion I'll second the motion. Okay, the motion has been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Mr. Mike Owens that we approve PLN MJS SUB 17-54 Urban County Government to guard that Hartland Unit 1 is amended with the 12 conditions noted by staff striking number 10 and substituting this wordage to restrict to note that there will be no access to Tate's Creek Road. Any other discussion on the motion? Yes, sir, mister. I'm not really pleased with that amendment to number 10. I might offer an amendment to that. to leave 10 as it is. In other words, if the Department of Highway approves access on Tage Creek, then they can have it. That's what I'm trying to do. Ben. Well, let's go down the middle. Let's see about right access only on Tage Creek, which puts them right into the turn lane. they don't try to buck the traffic you're offering that as amendment mr pen that's a suggestion all right let's discuss that suggestion then did i make an amendment no you didn't say well you said you'd like to amend but you your point was is to leave it you really was not amendment it was just to go back i'm amending her motion well okay you can amend your motion but is there a second second okay the amendment to the motion that is to leave it as it is is that correct okay now there's a second amendment and the second amendment was to write access only so we have a main motion and two amendments mr penn did oh mr penn okay that's a suggestion all right do you do you want to make that a motion well i could but i'm asking i'm not rejecting anything mr mr cravens do you want to make a motion on that i'll move that and hope i can get a second all right emotions but we got amendment we got a motion one amendment and now we have a possible second amendment depending upon whether there's a second mr penn has made a motion or amendment to a right access only do i have a second on that amendment all right it's been now properly moved and second for that particular amendment now here's what we do we go back to the last amendment the The last amendment is right access only. Mr. Wilson. Yes. The engineer has indicated that the state will not approve a write-in, write-out for residential only on Tates Creek Road. Okay, then. Oh, well, come on up and say it officially. Traffic, and I think would agree with the state, that the write-in would not be a good idea for this location. to either allow the access or restrict it. I'll withdraw my amendment and go back to the suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Penn. I was getting ready to have a little fun here, Ms. Case. I tell you, I was having a little fun here keeping up with all this. Now we only have one motion and one amendment. The amendment has been moved by Mr. Mike Cravens and has been seconded by. Now, the amendment is, yes? Oh, absolutely. She's a part of the staff. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Not a problem. You know, I like to, unfortunately, kind of grade things. a residential driveway the number of trips generated is not something that gives me great heartburn to have that entrance but ultimately if you go yes if if you had got my choice I'm always going to connect to a lower classified roadway which would be sarin drive you know I it probably didn't give you a definite black or white like you wanted so my question is is this unduly restrict them in your opinion no I don't say not to have it on there right I mean they were still if the motion was to restrict it to take to create we're still allowing that property access we're just telling them where it has to be accessed from thank you okay any other questions for traffic okay any discussion on the amendment. Now, do you understand what the amendment is? The amendment is to take and put number nine back as it was. Number ten. I'm sorry. Number ten. Well, no, it would be number nine because it's number ten. Okay, put number ten back as it was. That's the amendment. That's what we vote on first. Yes, sir. It looks like, and I'm addressing some of the neighbor's concerns, about all this paving i mean if you have to come back off of sarin drive and run a driveway all the way up through that sarin drive lot to the other one it's going to increase a lot of paving i mean i'm not even sure i don't know what the topo is through there if you get a driveway through there or not but um i mean i think it ought to stay the way the staff has written it Okay, that's what the amendment is, and you've spoken to it. Any other comments on that particular amendment? Yes, sir. Thank you. My only comment would be, it seems like, with no pun intended, we've gone down this road before with this sort of amendment. I would much rather see it kept simple and simply vote the original amendment up and down and move from there as opposed to this sort of amendment. Well, the amendments on the table. I understand. Okay. probably second and such anyone else okay yes sir able to comment and give their opinion sure again yeah they've I mean y'all already have Tom Tom do you have an initial they've already indicated so you've already given your opinion on even after this discussion you've given your opinion on after this discussion do you have any further opinion is my question i agree with miss casey calcar traffic engineer that's my opinion okay okay that's good enough all right now here's what we're voting on now we're voting on the amendment and the amendment is number 10 and then where the amendment is to leave it as it is as it is written now all those in favor would you please vote yes when it comes up on your screen nay if you disapprove Well, when it comes up on the screen. Okay. Y'all have a, if, okay, I'm going to go ahead and see what it is. Okay. All right. Now, again, for those who are in favor of the amendment, please vote. Okay. The amendment passes, 7 to 2. All right. Now we go back to the main motion, which is approval of PLN MJSUB 17-54, Urban County Government, gardens of heartland unit one as amended with the 12 conditions identified by staff so moved to denote no that that's out that's out you're right you're absolutely right you you got me you're absolutely right it actually goes back to what miss plumley indicated so that would indicate that the motion should read approval of that with uh to restrict access to tates creek for number nine is that right to to denote that there will be no access to tates creek that's the way that would amendment would read that's the main motion no oh that's right just like the revised that's exactly right in other words it it i'm yes Mr. Cravens is correct. It's going back to the original way that it was stated. So it reads, delete all final record plant information and extraneous information, remove 6, etc., and 25 zoning setback from plan. In other words, the original plan is now on the table. That's what you would be voting on. No, you didn't. You voted on the amendment. Okay. Now, is everybody set? Everybody ready? Okay, all those in favor of the PLN MJSUB 17-54 Urban County Government, the Guards of Heartland Unit 1 with the 12 conditions as identified by staff, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, motion carries 6-2. Thank you. While we're preparing for the next one, I understand from Mr. Duncan, our director of planning, that we have some very special guests with us. And I've been told that we have Mr. Martin Miley, who is the mayor of County Kildare, Ireland. Would you please stand? Good. Thank you. You also have some representatives with you. Would they also please stand? Thank you. Thank you so very, very much for your attendance. How long are you all planning on being here? We're here for a week. A week? very very good and you did not have anything else other than to come to a planning commission meeting is that right well could I ask you something would you please come to the mic so we officially get you on record for this yeah we yes thank you yes thank you very much and thank you for your hospitality we're here a deputation from Kildare we're twinned with Lexington here for 33 years we we're a sister city as you refer to it here we're here for the celebration of the 60 year with the Ville so we're just here we're here for we came yesterday then we're here for the week we want to thank you for your hospitality we'd like to thank Mr Duggan for his attending our meeting this morning and enlighten us on the the planning proceedings here in in Lexington which was very interesting we wish you the very best of luck we we do the very same plans in our county and we know how important they are and the lengthy times that it takes but it's a lovely lovely county a lovely city and we'd like to thank you very very much well thank you so very very much for being here we appreciate it we always welcome visitors from wherever they come but especially from Ireland I think that's nice hope you learned something you were here and please while you're here would you please spend a lot of money because our city needs as much as we can get thank you and your guests and your colleagues thank you very much and thanks for your hospitality okay are we moving now to uh On page four, Mr. James Baker. Yes, sir. Okay. Our next item does appear on page four of the agenda, and it should be behind tab three in the Planning Commission's notebooks. There is an original staff report related to the zone change as well as a supplemental staff report for your consideration today. The petitioner is James D. Baker, and the case number is PLN MAR 17-36. Mr. Baker is requesting a rezoning for property at 1345 Greendale Road from an agricultural urban zone to a planned neighborhood residential zone, which is our R3 zone. The subject property is about 14 acres in size. It is located on the west side of Greendale Road, about a quarter of a mile from Citation Boulevard. subject property shown on our map here in white is has some frontage on Greendale Road and then it narrows to about 70 feet in width and then expands again to a larger rectangle to the rear of their parcel the zoning to the south west and sorry and north is also in an R3 zone further to the south is a a B6P zone that was recently rezoned along Greendale, Malundi, and I think Celio Vista. Here's the intersection of Citation Boulevard further to the south of the subject property so Citation and Greendale Road. And Greendale does continue in this vicinity it's a minor arterial and goes to the north and intersects with Spur Road. The major line that you see it's a dashed line on our map is actually a railroad and a lot of our residential zoning butts up to that and then on the other side of the railroad to the east is light industrial in this location the subject property is also adjoining a radio station so to the east of the are sort of surrounded on two sides by the subject property is 1289 Greentale and that is the location of an existing radio station in this vicinity that our understanding is that it would remain in this location on the aerial photograph I'll point to it you can see that they have three towers as well as a small office broadcasting location closer to Greendale Road for that use and then the three towers one two and three that property is an agricultural urban zone as well as the existing zoning for the subject property here's a view of the subject property from Greendale Road the property is currently occupied by one single-family residence and that is located to the rear on the subject property so that 70 foot width that runs up to the I guess north side of the parcel is lined with this existing driveway and the existing mature trees along that and then this would be a view towards where the proposed some of the proposed townhouses would be along the Greendale Road frontage and then these are views of Greendale Road itself looking back towards Citation Boulevard so along the frontage for the subject property it's not been improved yet but the opposite side of the road does have you can see in this photograph curb gutter and sidewalks as well as street trees and then this view is looking back towards oh that's the wrong label it's looking back towards spur Road it's not Tate's Creek Road at all and shows an intersection with another subdivision in this view the applicant is proposing as I mentioned in our three zone they are requesting a combination of townhouses and single-family residences for the subject property and you can see on the development plan which is sort of an integral part of our staff review on this location I'm gonna step up that there are townhouses in two distinct locations along Greendale Road and then also to the opposite corner of the subject property at the rear along where Wiggington point would intersect or stub into the subject property and then the rest of the subject property is proposed for single-family residences I think we have 12 or 13 townhouses along the front I think it's 13 and then 12 in the rear and 40 43 single-family homes between those two locations this represents a density of 4.84 dwelling units per acre Since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2013, it no longer has a land use map associated with it, but instead the planning commission and the council make decisions about zone changes based on the policy statements as well as the goals and objectives from the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan policies are promoting land use compatibility, expanded housing choices, providing for well-designed neighborhoods improving a desirable community and generally making the best use of our land inside the urban service area in order to protect our rural farm areas the petitioner contends that their application is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and also that the existing zoning and existing zoning is inappropriate but the proposed zone is appropriate at this location the staff reported in early october to the zoning committee that the requested zone change and associated development plan which is the tool by which our staff as well as the planning commission evaluates compliance with the comprehensive plan was contrary to several goals and objectives of the plan we did meet with the petitioner on october 10th shortly after the subdivision and zoning committee meetings and several members of the staff were part of that discussion we expressed our concerns to the applicant we offered multiple plan improvements and the staff requested that additional thought and effort be put forth to the development plan to address the comprehensive plans policy statements goals and objectives it was indicated that revisions to the development plan were necessary for the staff to make a more positive recommendation related to the zone change and the development plan to the commission at this hearing but the staff has received no communication from the petitioner nor has the development plan been modified since that meeting occurred the staff would prefer for the applicant to postpone two weeks so that we can work with them to address the concerns of the development plan so that it can meet the comprehensive plan but it is my understanding that they wish to move forward today so if the planning commission is to take action today the staff cannot have a recommendation of postponement we need to make a recommendation to the planning commission as to whether this meets the comprehensive plan or the other requirements of krs at this time the staff remains very concerned about the proposed rezoning and the corollary development plan and will outline approximately the six reasons that we think the proposed rezoning is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan today and we feel it should not be approved first the comprehensive plan calls for well-designed neighborhoods including mixed type housing safe affordable and accessible housing and safe and positive social interactions within neighborhoods this includes neighborhoods that are connected for pedestrian and various modes of transportation and that was from goal three of theme a in the comprehensive plan our concern related to this particular goal and objective is that the proposed townhouses along greendale road and then along wiggington point are discrete they are not connected in fact the greendale road townhouses are not connected in any way to the rest of the subdivision the staff doesn't believe that that promotes any kind of social interaction for those individuals with the rest of the subdivision and even the rest of the subdivision going further west where there are greenways parks as well as schools in this case there's also no way for that Greendale Road townhouse node there's nothing proposed for that development to be connected to the other streets within the subdivision nor is there a way for it to be integrated into to what is currently still the radio site, but might be available for future development. Second, the plan recommends infill and redevelopment, and as well as adaptive reuse, which is the May goal two. And the petitioner proposes to develop a vacant lot, which of course is positive, but not in a manner that the staff believes respects the area's context or design features. The project, or the comprehensive plan, calls for infill projects that take into consideration multimodal transportation and respect the pedestrian experience, the staff suggested to the applicant that they provide a vehicular and transportation connection between, vehicular and pedestrian connection between this node of townhouses and the rest of the subdivision, and again, that was something that they were not interested in, but we felt would address the comprehensive plan recommendations. In addition, the comprehensive plan on page 101 goes on to talk about development plans that provide open space, help establish a successful infill project, and in this case, the only open space provided is this linear space between a proposed Lucille Drive and Greendale Road, which the staff believes has very little usable aspect to it. Third, the townhouses and single family residences already exist within the area, and therefore they indicated goal one of theme A was to expand housing choices, and they felt they met that. But in fact, these housing choices are available in this immediate area already, so there's not a new type of housing being proposed by the applicant. fourth the comp plan also talks about integration of various types of housing and states that there's a diverse neighborhoods feature townhomes apartments condominiums duplex housing all mixed in with single-family homes which provides for an opportunity for personal interaction and security as depicted on the development plan there's no integration to support the design recommendation or the goal for striving for positive and safe interaction in the neighborhood again the the dispersion of the use across the two nodes without any connection is a concern for the staff the 2013 comprehensive plan goes on to talk about reducing our carbon footprint and I think this larger map will show these lots that would be created here on the subject property would have to utilize Rockway Place through an adjoining parcel that's not built yet come down Rockway Place go to Coulter Pass then come back on Skyview Lane to Lucille Drive in order to get to this commercial area and by not not creating a network of complete streets in this area there's actually a it causes more traffic because you aren't you don't have the connected streets to get to the nodes that support those residential locations in this case it would be the commercial or the school the the traffic pattern that would have to occur to get to those places is about three times as long as necessary there was a connection through the subject property and the connection we're speaking of mostly is Lucille Drive and the applicant is depicting Lucille Drive on an adjacent parcel almost entirely the location where Lucille Drive currently stops is to the north and then there's a large subdivision or large area called hash and Hounsel that is proposed for development to the north of the subject property where Lucille Drive has been approved in addition there's another portion of the Spring Bay subdivision owned by the applicant where Lucille Drive is proposed to connect from the south and then we have Wiggington Point connecting from the west so the subject property proposes that Lucille Drive connect through the agricultural tract of course not at this time and then only they would build only about 70 feet of the right-of-way and the collector street where none of these individuals would be able to use that collector street nor the ones on greendale road so there's really sort of a missed opportunity if we allow the applicant to push lucille drive onto an adjacent agricultural tract the staff believes that the applicant's property should bear its fair share of the improvement. And there's concern that the geometrics they're proposing on the north end don't really meet engineering standards as well. The plan continues to talk about connections and emphasizes the efficiency of the entire transportation network and how important those connections are. The, not sure I mentioned this, but as proposed, they're allowing for lucille drive to be 87 percent on the adjoining parcel and again this parcel is larger than the adjoining parcel as well so we believe it should carry its fair proportion of that collector street improvement the last point of the staff's presentation has to do with another policy statement from the comprehensive plan related to the bike and pedestrian master plan the comprehensive plan makes a statement on page 188 that the bicycle and pedestrian plan should be implemented and that plan emphasizes a balanced transportation system which connects neighborhoods to their parks and open spaces as well as the commercial and the school areas and it goes on to enforce or reinforce the sustainable community idea which encourages pedestrian and bike activity and the staff believes that that master plan further emphasizes the the design elements of the 2007 2013 comprehensive plan at this time the staff does not believe that the proposed zone change or development plan fosters a well-designed neighborhood as recommended by the 2013 comprehensive plan and the staff finds that the proposal does not provide for integrated and varied housing choices does not respect the existing character of the immediate area does not provide effective and comprehensive transportation networks and does not foster bike and pedestrian connections in support support of sustainable development lastly along these same lines the appropriateness of the AU and the R3 zone was something that was mentioned in the justification statement by the applicant the appropriateness of the abeath sorry the r3 zone often also relies on a development that is well designed is compatible with adjoining land uses and can be successfully incorporated into the immediate area and the staff cannot find that the r3 is appropriate given the limited connectivity and poor site layout in addition there's poor integration with the proposed development to the immediate north on the hash council development property at this point the staff would recommend if the applicant is not willing to postpone that the planning commission recommend disapproval of this rezoning these are the findings that you will find in your notebook for that and i believe i've covered most of those points. The finding one was that the proposed R3 is not in agreement with the 2000 comprehensive plan. It's not meeting the goals and objectives as we usually evaluate a plan. Second, there's been no unanticipated change of a social, physical, or economic nature in the immediate area that would, since the plan was adopted, that would support an R3 r3 zone for the subject property and then lastly the existing au remains appropriate for the subject property until an appropriate urban development is proposed the appropriateness of the r3 zone relies upon development that's well designed compatible with adjoining uses and can be successfully incorporated into the immediate area which the staff does not believe can occur at this location with this plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendations. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Berkley. Tracy, this Lucille Drive, the portion that's already constructed, it doesn't look like, to me, it abuts any of this subject property, and geometrically, I don't know how you tie that in to this piece of property other than what's shown. That being said, if that's the case, how do you impose this restriction on this property when he doesn't own the adjoining property? How do you propose that gets done? I think we disagree. The staff believes, well, first, the road currently ends here, and it ends here. so there are two parcels one to the south and one to the north where Lucille Drive speaking of the South property at the South property boundary yes the staff believes oh again this is not built and the applicant has control of that property so they could certainly shift that location if he chose to but this angle is not what's approved on the adjoining parcel mr. can you put the Can you put the arrow back up again please because I'm not following you. What I'm looking at, it looks like that street is built. So I'm looking at the wrong thing obviously. Can you put the arrow back up? It's built here. Okay. So that's not this property either? that even even even if if you're talking about moving it the property in between is not this property which is controlled by mr. Baker but it's not this property correct and it looks like to me it's been designed to go that way yeah I think what isn't depicted here clearly is what's happening on the hash council property to the north and mr. Martin has a blowout of what that is the applicant is showing a different angle to this than is approved on their plan. It actually angles to the southwest and aims towards the subject property, but they're showing a geometric change here where it sort of swings over. The staff believes we would follow the same angle and make it a more gentle curve and share Lucille Drive on their property as well as the subject property. But they've got their retention down there, right? Well, again, that's proposed. Well, there's probably a reason it's there. I'm sure. Pheography-wise. There's a reason we want Lucille Drive, too. Okay. In the middle of the retention basin? There's no detention basin there today. I understand that, but that's the low area, right? There's no floodplain there today. And then there's a statement here about a disproportionate portion of the cost. Well, Lucille Drive is a very long street. It serves a lot of people. So you're saying basically that this owner should share that cost, should take all that cost? No, should share the cost with this other parcel. And how is he going to do that if that other parcel isn't ready to be developed? By building half of it. by building their half on their on the on the north half so we're just gonna have a half a road no sir a full section as I just described full section coming on this side so he's gonna build it on his property yeah the whole road yes he's suggesting they build the whole road okay all right I get it okay mr. Thank you Mr. Chair Tracy kind of follow up you know I kind of had the same question as far as Lucille Drive but you did explain it the bottom part the adjoining property on to the south none of that's been developed yet the immediate south yes to my knowledge it is it is not constructed all the way out to where the townhouses are none of it's been developed so they would still have to join Hackelway Place Rockaway Place well is it Rockaway I'm sorry okay Rockaway Place that hasn't been built to the south yet either has it correct so I believe what is being built is Wigington Point okay so as it is right now can I think you did a moment ago but could you explain the way it's there it's proposed how these fine folks would have access to their property I honestly I don't know it's a timing issue so as Wigington Point develops from the west I would assume the applicant would wait until Wigington Point stubs into this parcel to continue and develop from the west they again same applicant same practitioner could change their timing on the south and build those roadways and connect to at least on Rockaway place their portion the property north of this is not controlled by mr. Baker you know with you know I'm looking at the map to put in the folder here and so forth you know Rockaway place or Wigandum Point it's I'm sorry to say but it seems very convoluted how you'd get out to any major corridor okay thank you any other questions from this way applicant mr. Martin has our development. Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. Thank you. I was just so hurried to get that I forgot my agenda. We have too much paper sometimes. I understand. The preliminary plan, development plan that you see before you is on page four of your agenda. Spring Bay Unit 2, Major Development Plan 17-98. And as you have heard, you can see from its location that they are proposing Rockaway to continue here in Cul-de-Sac with this connection here up and into this property. Blue Seal Drive, as shown on this plan, would come here and hook to this in this location. This, of course, is the odd configured little pocket of townhouses where they're proposing an access out to Greendale Road. Now, this is a proposed detention basin. Again, pocket of townhouses that could be associated with these approved townhouses in this location. You can see through here. This is an existing house that they would like to preserve. Now, what I have here for you is a bit of a bigger picture on these particular street connections and their status. This is Hash Hounshell. This has been approved and not certified by this body. And this is what was being referred to by Ms. Wade. The geometrics right here take it this way. That's why it could match. Here. This is 636 feet from here. There's plenty of linear feet to go from this point and reach this point. And I had that conversation with our engineers today. So it's possible. It's very doable, which would allow Lucille to be extended and shared or even contained here. Now, another concern's been expressed, again, with the layout. And this you'll see on what is on your agenda. Our biggest concerns are the street layouts and the way this will all function. Here's Wigington as it comes down Wigington Point to intersect with Rockway Place. And what this shows you is they're built to here, built to here, approved and not built. Approved and not built. Wigington Way, approved and not built. These are approved, approved and not built. Over here is a piece of Lucille that takes us on out to Spur Road. And these connections are critically important. And this, relative to this detention basin, if you were to bring Wiginton Bay down and bring it down to intersect with Lucille, which would provide a lot of access to this particular piece of property, that could serve as the dam for the detention basin. And that is done all over this community and is not uncommon whatsoever. for that to be done. So this, bringing this connection through is certainly doable and would also help accomplish the detention concerns that would exist on this property. If you'll put up the first handout, please, or not handout, but I wanted you to see something that really illustrates staff's concern about the street connections and the layout in this area. That, folks is the ZDP from 1996. This was the original layout for the property. You see the orange lines at the bottom? That's the subject property that we're talking about today. The pink road coming down to it would have been a collector street that cooked up to the rest of the collector streets proposed for this area. Do you see the tremendous density proposed? The apartments, the townhouses? Tremendous density was proposed out here and they had a collector street system. that would have stubbed into this subject property. The next one, please. Now, I apologize for this one because, actually, I didn't grab the amendment. This is the original. It's been amended. Now you can see this is what we're living with. This is what we've got. It's all single-family homes with the exception to the side of that yellow X. That is the school site, and I meant to grab that plan and did not. I grabbed the original one. This one that you're looking at has been amended. There's a school site there, and there are townhouses adjacent. You may recall, see the two little yellow dots I put on there? Those streets have been cul-de-sac-ed, and the cemetery is down in that area. So again, we've had interruptions to the overall connections in this area. Wigington is the pink, the heavy coming right down into stubbing into the subject property. That is why it's staff's concern and such a large issue is to bring Wigington, which runs from Sandersville Road, a major collector, down and intersect with another major collector, Lucille. You can see it serves as a spine for the currently approved plans and how we would anticipate that this area is going to develop. So we see this as tremendously important as well as getting the proper alignment and a timely construction of Lucille. We were on Sarin Drive today. It took us a lot of years to get to Sarin Drive, and that has been invaluable to the traffic movement out there. So that's the concern that staff has on the street layout, which has a tremendous impact on this particular development plan. And it is a preliminary subdivision plan as well. With that, staff is recommending postponement on the plans. because we think we can get where we want to go on this plan with some realignment of the street system, and it will impact the lots, no doubt, and there will have to be some realignment. But we certainly believe that, again, as I stated, this could be accomplished. There's a lot of room here to get this point to that point and meet your subdivision. And there's the ability to bring Wigington down, intersect it into Lucille the Collector, again, help provide the detention that is needed. This is the upper part of the watershed. Again, this is a bit awkward. It gives staff some concern. Granted, this has been approved, so that's why they're showing this connection. of course is a desire to try to get homes in here because of their situation with the adjoining property and their desire to save the existing home but again staff believes that there could be an improved street layout with this particular plan that would make it approvable so at this point in time we are recommending postponement to you I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff any questions applicant Rory Kaley at the EA Partners. With me is Jim Baker, owner and applicant for this zone change. Basically Tom hung up there the same thing that I was holding on to. I guess I'll run quickly through a few reasons why we thought we were meeting some of these conditions that staff was talking about, and then we'll let Mr. Baker address you as well. Orientation, this is Jim Baker's development property. This is the zone change, Mr. Baker's property. Currently, this is Mr. Hayden's property. And then up here, Masterson Station, Masterson Hills, which we've been doing for the 20-plus years I've been here, is a combination of Masterson, Baker, and Hayden. This one, not built, but approved, and two sign-offs from being certified. It was approved this year. This plan was approved within the last year, and it's, last I checked, I think there's three sign-offs from being certified. So these are both final development plans, both on the track to be certified as they are. So when we did the layout for the middle piece, we were making sure that the existing approved streets, we were lining up and hitting. With Lucille coming from the north, this was aimed at a shared property line, existing trees, and there's a potential water feature. I'll let Red Wings experts tell us what that is. So at that point, we decided that it would turn. Mr. Baker's been in contact with this owner of the radio tower trying to see if he's interested in developing. You're correct, this little pocket of townhouses does sit alone, but it could certainly be connected in with a bigger piece when this comes in. With what's on approval, these are townhouses. So, even though this may be far from here, it is next to what's already approved as townhouses. Multi-families all on this side, townhouses, townhouses are here. Mr. Baker's first piece. Two townhouses, groups separated by two roads and single family, same situation here. This one was gonna be a part of that. With the revision that we provide the staff, we were showing what a Lucille drive could be and meet the requirements. So yeah, we planned a little bit of a kick over this way to ensure that Lucille continued to Lucille. We thought this way was bringing Lucille into Rockaway, which Rockaway's a local, Lucille's a collector size at both ends. that was the option that we were going for some of the other conditions on here just if we go forward with approval i think we should clear up number seven no building permits clarification that it would be for the townhouse areas only subdivision plan for single family would have not have building permits held up on a final development plan. The remove Rockaway Place cul-de-sac, the right-of-way itself stays on Mr. Baker's property. What the dashed lines that extend off is just where the building line off of this right-of-way. We're not proposing Rockaway Place cul-de-sac is on another property. It stays on ours. I think that condition would need to be removed. Lot 71, that is the green area around this townhouse area. It is labeled as HOA. It would maintain that way. Originally, we had looked at trying to get some sort of usable connection through this narrow neck. At the moment, we don't have anything. As this develops, this property through here, becoming, looking at a bigger portion, would have the option of coming back and having a use. But for now, we've put it under the HOA labeling as requested. Note number eight on the current plan is the same, no building permits shall be issued. That's the same as number seven they are asking us to put on there. I think it just needs a correction to show for the townhouses. Number 11, we know that any access on the Greendale requires state highway approval at this time. There's talk about that road becoming a local jurisdiction down the road, that pun. The access to Greendale Road for these townhouses, it meets the separation from Applecross. Along Greendale Road, Applecross extends, exists on this side. We have put it as far away as possible to serve this pod. Greendale Road, we're showing improvements to be curb, gutter, and sidewalk, which matches the other side of the road. Other side of the road is single-family, all the driveways on Greendale. We are asking for one access point at the correct distance. We think that's an appropriate use for that pod. Spent a lot of time on Lucille. And then the last condition talks about odd-shaped lots as this property butts up with what Mr. Baker has already approved on Spring Bay 1. And as both plans get approved, we would square out the lots as shown here so that they are typical residential lots. You know, if you look at just that zone property, Lot 40 is a weird little triangle. Same thing when we run over here. It was an odd little triangle. But as we get the two properties together, we can create normal-shaped rectangular buildable lots. The discussion or the resolve, I think, is resolved by us showing the potential of how those lots will develop as the two properties move forward. Other than that, I'll turn over to Mr. Baker. and take any questions you might have. We can let Mr. Baker speak, and then we'll get back with you. I've got a long question. Any idea what an arterial cost is today per foot or whatever, collector, whatever? Collector. Collector? No. You don't have any idea? I'll leave that up to the engineers. Okay. Mr. Baker. You might have an idea. My name is Jim Baker. I'm the applicant and owner of the property. I'd like to discuss everything, go over everything that's been mentioned. I brought this plan showing this is the radio station property right here. This is a tree line that's heavily treed. matter of fact I went there this morning and counted 25 trees that are at least two feet in diameter I didn't count the ones at one foot it's big ones the staff has recommended me taking Lucio I guess and turning it going down the fence line or going through this creek area this is a creek it's not a big flowing creek The watershed starts up here approximately. It's not practical to put the road through here. At one time when they had all the greenway plans, they were planning on putting the road through here and having a greenway. This is somewhat of a greenway because it has my detention that I plan to put in. Lucille is stubbed right here, right now. and I just wanted to continue to and butt it into this property. By the way, Lucille Drive runs for probably a couple miles at this point and my partner and I have been responsible for putting most of Lucille Drive in out there in that area. As a matter of fact, I named the street after a lady that owned the farm. I'm co-owner of this property here that deals with Weekington Way I have blacktop streets stubbed right to here right now we will continue on and Weekington Way will tie in at this point I have this plan approved with Rockaway coming through and Lucille coming through to turn Lucille and go down here through a creek or through the tree line runs into this street. And this street right now is stubbed here. And I also have control of putting this through. I own this property with a partner. We're going to put that street to here. I'm going to bring the street from here to here and on up through to here. Lucille Drive, I bought this property, I think, about three years ago. Had I not bought it, Lucille Drive would stop right here. We'd be dealing with an owner here. I have talked to Mr. Martin and he indicated he would try to make it to this hearing today, but I don't see him. And he could comment on his feelings about his property. Where it's all messed up, Mr. Hayden is my partner. have bought approximately 700 acres out there and developed for the last 25 years. This is the only piece of property. Everything around here is zoned R3. And Ms. Wade indicated that R3 was not appropriate. I think that's how I understood that. I think it's very appropriate. I also own the lots directly across Greendale Road along here, 10 lots. That's across from these townhouses. The staff asked me to turn these townhomes and face them toward Greendale Road. I said, okay. They asked me to improve Greendale Road with a curb and sidewalk. I said, okay. And a widening. As far as connectivity, I can't determine when this will be developed. My partner and I used to own this together and this together. We did some trading around. He owns this now, and I don't own this. he had a contract on it with another person and that contract fell through but this plan has been approved and I'm just dealing with what's already there as far as connectivity and roads and traffic first of all I've told a lot of people I have more to gain or lose by messing up everything I still own a lot of land out here over here that's already zoned This is the only thing we have that I have that's not zoned. So I think it comes down to two things, the alignment of Lucille Drive, and quite frankly, I didn't get involved with this because I didn't want to run interference, but I should have. If you notice, Lucille Drive is stubbed right here right now. If you draw a straight line, where does it run? Right here. They did this thing, which created its stubbing in right into a tree line. It's not practical to put a street down the middle of two property owners. Forget about the trees. It's a fence line. It's not practical to put a street. You can't. I went to this man and said, hey, can I build a street on your property? Half of it. And he'd say, not really. I'm not interested. it or something. People would say, yeah, are you going to pay for it? Then they might want it. But even if I put the street down through, it messes everything up here and Rockaway is angled this way. I have sewers to this point right here for these lots that once I put this blacktop in, we semi-developed this several years ago. We just did not stub the street in to this point. As far as these townhouses, they're contiguous with these townhouses. These townhouses right here, they're talking about connectivity. There's townhouses here. There's single-family homes here. The point of making connectivity as far as sidewalks and things like that, I'll be putting the city sidewalk right here. They can come to this street and walk down and go to the school back here. I don't like this plan the planters put together. It's too much density, too much traffic, too much apartments. My son lives right here in this house. That's a fine home. It's all brick, full basement, approximately 3,000 square feet, worth several hundred thousand. I'm trying to preserve that home on a very large lot and not just pile apartments all over the place. I did a combination of single-family lots as well as townhomes, and I think that serves the need. connectivity and road access. I looked at some of the surrounding properties out there that I'm not developing. Ball Homes is currently building 336 apartments and townhomes approximately three-tenths of a mile from this property. It has, for 333 units, almost five times the density of mine, it has one access point. This plan right here, the way I show it, will have three. Immediately it will have this one and this one because I control this and this. I will put this in first. and this right here is one of our next phases. We'll have a street coming up and Wigington tie-in in there. And then a future tie-in, and again, I don't have control of this property, so I have three tie-ins, one, two, three. I have a total of 70 units, and I'm not even counting this street access. That takes care of 13 of the units. But I have three access points for 70 units. And Ball Homes, and I've checked the subdivision across the street, another one down the street. There's one down there that has 42 units. It has one access point. I have 72 units, and I'm going to have three access points. And then the Ball Homes apartments, so as far as traffic, I'd hate to live in that apartment complex and get ready to go and work in the morning when it's completed. And it is under construction. It should be 100% complete in approximately six months, I'm guessing. So as far as having extra streets or bringing Wiggin on through and all that, unnecessary. The Greendale Hills subdivision across the street is all single-family homes. There's 162 units over there. They have three access points. I'm going to have three access points for 70 units. I went to the meeting this past Tuesday down here. about the expansion of urban service area. It looks like they're leaning toward not expanding. They kept using the word infill. But that's what that is. That's infill. Everything around here, everything is zoned property. Except for this property here and my property here. And the radio station, I had talked to the man. I've tried to buy some of his land. I've tried to trade him some land. I've even tried to sell him some of my land. I've tried to work with him. And two days ago, he called me. He said, I'm going to try to make it to the planning here today. He's not here. He is a very busy man, and he travels a lot. He owns lots of radio stations. So I think this little sliver land, I'm in hopes of someday acquiring some of this and doing a little better job of this situation. But I'm here to zone my property. I don't want a postponement. Postponement is not going to change my mind in any way. If you don't zone it, then I'll just keep it. I bought this land right here 10 years ago. it's the only piece of property that's not zoned. I thought, well, I guess I better go ahead and get zoned before I die. My son lives right here. And it's a nice little place. I was criticized somewhat by leaving this residence. They said, oh, well, you leave that residence. And that was by the staff. He said, you know, we'd probably rather you tear that house down and put it down houses, more homes for people. His thoughts might be the same here. It's not my thoughts. I'm not a normal developer. I'm not a normal person. I try to look at doing something nice. These townhouses right here, I'm planning to build all of myself, and they're all going to be brick. I'm a brick builder. I don't know what I'll do here. I may not live long enough to do anything. But I'd like for you to zone my property and approve my request. If you choose not to do, I guess I'll just keep it for a while. I think that may be all I have to say. Let me look at my notes here. I think that's about it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone have any questions? Mr. Baker, the one thing that's—I mean, there's a whole lot about this that I agree is complicated and ugly, but the part that keeps gnawing to me is how do you think you're going to build this on his property when he's not willing to sell it to you? I'm not. I'm going to build it right to there. And we've been doing this throughout the whole subdivision, starting almost at Leestown Road. I didn't own this property two years ago, but we, Ball Holmes actually built this leg of the Lucille. If you drop down, I don't have a big enough plan to show everything. We did the next leg of Lucille. And then after that, we did another leg. So it's been kind of legs done. I told this man that I was stubbing the street into his property. I said, are you opposed to it? And he says, I don't know. I need to talk to some people. He never has told me what he wanted yet. I have a plan right here. This is a little smaller. But this is the radio station's plan. This is Lucio's. I plan to stub it. and it kind of shows it going through his property and up here which is not shown on this. It kind of goes like from right here to here. And it allows him to have lots backing up to this tree line which are desirable lots. I'm trying to save these trees. Yeah, okay, this one does. I'm sorry. It does. This is kind of what. And I've told this man what I was trying to do. I told the staff, you know, I'm stubbing the street into this man's property. I'm stubbing the street over here into this man's property. If I owned that property, that's what I'd want. And he also can have access off of Greendale Road into his property. So it's not like he can't develop his property. And quite frankly, I think he's leaning toward, because I've urged him to go ahead and get his property zoned. Anyway, that's about all I have to say. We have another question here for Ms. Mundy. This is for Rory. When we approve that cul-de-sac that is on one of those, behind Mr. Baker, when we approve that cul-de-sac, which is not on his property, I'm sorry, the roundabout, on that property, when we approve that plan, did we not set aside a driveway to that house? first of all the driveway runs right along this property line a driveway that's how my son gets to his house right now he lives here his driveway entrance is here and he drives down so the plan that you approved does not come into the driveway at all that wasn't our plan Okay. There was something in, you know, and I know I'm getting older, but there was something about a driveway coming off that cul-de-sac. Near that cul-de-sac, that line, that is an access easement to the rear of those townhouse units, 12 feet wide near the property line. That may be what you're thinking of, but that does not connect to the roundabout. It just has the four public street legs. It was something, and I can't remember. I'll have to go back and check my records. And I also don't know if this is what was filed, what was approved, or the current state either. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone here would like to speak to this particular proposal? If not, do you all have anything more that you want to emphasize before we move to the staff? We have in the rebuttal a stage. Not staff, make your rebuttal. Is it too late for me to comment on one thing I forgot? You got another two minutes. On the staff's postponement recommendation, they said basically that this townhouse area here could not be integrated with this property well it can the drive is shown here if i would require this or if he came to me and said hey jim can i put in some houses or townhouses and we work together on putting this through i said yeah so it can be integrated i probably forgot something but i'll okay maybe remember tomorrow thank you thank you staff i think the planning commission it's important to to know you all adopted a more flexible comprehensive plan but with that instead of the staff presenting a case to you that said it's residential the plan the map showed residential the density they showed meets the density we have higher expectations now the flexibility of the comprehensive plan that the developers are getting that the neighborhoods are getting means that we expect higher standards, better design, more connections, pedestrian connections. It's not clear to me why there's so much objection to some pedestrian connections between these two nodes, or why there's so much objection to building a fair share of Lucille Drive. Mr. Baker, I think, is unique. Usually developers don't want to keep those old trees because all they're going to do is fall down, the new neighbors houses and cause more issues. So that's a unique perspective to keep all of those trees. But I think from the staff's perspective, we want to improve quality of life, and part of that is making better choices than we used to make. Making the connection of Wigington and providing a Stub Street into the adjacent property so it can continue to Greendale. it's providing the pedestrian connections it's rockaway doesn't have to veer at that angle it can curve back up so there's options i think mr baker wants you to believe this is the only plan that works and on any property there are multiple plans that will work and the staff thinks there are better options for this property and would ask that the commission either indefinitely postpone this request or disapprove it at this time any questions from this way okay go ahead thank you uh miss wade neither side of this proposed property has been developed yet it sounds like there are approved plans uh the the roundabout it seems like you know they're looking at making a little bit sharper turn whereas it doesn't have to on the south side of the property what lucille coming through that hasn't been built it is shown as going directly on to the radio property does it have to was it planned for that do you mean this yes yes that was that was approved by the planning commission okay um it shows it stopping on the radio property yes and from our perspective a portion of lucille drive could continue along here but this angle is pointing i don't read it as pointing here and suggesting that lucille drive just straddle the property line i read it as it's pointing this direction and you could curve it back and connect and again engineering confirmed that that it that is possible their understanding is they want to save some trees here again older trees and that there's a a water some again it's a low-lying area of their property i'm not sure it again they indicated on their plan that it's a possible creek correct not not a not a flood plain not a confirmed creek it's really a low-lying area of their property where the farm drained to so so with what you're suggesting lucille drive would probably the cost of it would probably be shared between the two property owners as opposed to just one property owner exactly okay thank you Thank you. Mr. Berkeley. I don't have a question, Tracy, but I want to ask it right now in case you do want to comment on it. But the question you just came up with there is the problem I brought up before. We're talking about sharing costs between two property owners, and we don't have one property owner involved. So that's part of the problem I see here. I don't know where I am on the development plan side at this moment, but it sounds like to me that some tweaking might have resulted in at least a favorable recommendation for the zoning part. So I would hate to see us pass on the zoning opportunity here just for the development plan. So my question is, is it appropriate for us to go forward with the zoning portion and then not approve the development plan at this point and let you all continue to work? There's a problem with sending, in my opinion, sending a zone change forward with no development plan. that sends a message to the developer that anything is possible. But you've got everything. I mean, everything around it is what he's asking for. And the appropriateness of it, again, the question is, does it agree with the comprehensive plan? And so the goals, we used to have a map that just said yellow between zero and five units. He's right in there. Go for it. Now we have a plan that doesn't say that. it says compatibility so we want residential near residential yes but does that mean this development is appropriate and at this point we can't support that because of again minor tweaks that the applicants not willing to make okay go you're gonna have to go back then and explain to me how we're gonna share the cost between these two property owners and how's that gonna happen it's the same as it always is when farm a comes in for development they build their portion of a collector street and when farm b comes in and connects to it they build their portion so there's no way for us to know when this last puzzle piece might come in to to the collector street we don't know we've we've known lucille drive is a collector street that's going to go from i guess is it lees town sandersville all the way back here to spur road And every time a piece comes in, we get a little chunk. And this will be, surely, will probably be the last piece, the radio tower. There'll be the holdout. And eventually, like Cairn Drive, the point Tom made, we'll eventually get that. And at some point, the city may have to use eminent domain to get it or go and speak to the radio tower people and say, hey, we just need 40 feet on the back of your property to build this. So then it's the city building. It could be. I mean, in the case of Sarin Drive, that's what we did. So I want to make sure I understand. You're proposing that either half of the road or half of the cost, I don't know which one, I'm not quite with you, is shared by each owner. If you're not suggesting, I think when I asked you before, you're not suggesting that they build half the road at this point. Not a half section, no. that they build a fair proportion of the road. The way that they show this plan, all of Flusil except for the 70 feet is shown on this parcel, and it's a smaller parcel. So in the staff's opinion, that's asking that parcel to carry in disproportionate cost for the collector street. but i i think i heard the applicant say that he had approached the adjoining owner about running a street down the back there and that he he wasn't interested well again that's just hearsay we don't we weren't none of us here were privy to that conversation except for mr baker I think we're in a quandary. I don't understand how you're proposing that it gets split. Are you talking about physically, or are you talking about just the cost? Not the cost. Physically, that they build more of the collector street on their property, which would be a different alignment than they're showing there. But the one you showed went onto their property and then came back on the radio property. But how do you make that happen if you don't have control of the radio property? It's the same as we always do. We wait for that property to come in for development. It's in the urban service area. It has a higher value as a subdivision than as a radio tower for the commission. From a planning perspective, it has a higher and better use, right, the radio tower property. I hope it's in our count of 5,400 acres. well it's not vacant okay if it could could be under utilized i mean that's in the 17 000. mr pen i'd like to get us back to why we're here and and we've gotten way off base the subdivision committee recommend postponing for this because they wanted the applicant the staff to work together to work out a solution that the staff could bring that could be approvable. We're obviously not there. And for us to sit here and spend an hour and a half trying to talk about how we're going to make this work, it's not our job. Our job is either vote up or down what they've proposed. The thing that worries me about this whole thing is that this is coming with a high cost. The staffs recommended disapproval. If we disapprove the zone change, it's a year before we can come back. That's the game we're playing here today, gentlemen. We're not playing this game of where that road ought to be. That road will be built either by Mr. Baker, either all or half, depending on him. He's wanted to go over on the side so that the other people will build the road. That's not what we ought to be deciding here today. We ought to be deciding whether this is an approvable development plan or not, and we sure should not approve the zone change and disapprove the development plan because we got away from this in the 80s. We sure don't want to go back to this. So let's go from our 2013 comp plan. We got rid of the maps, got rid of them for good reason, but you've got to be able to say we're going to support the comp plan, and this doesn't support the comp plan. So I want to get us back on track here because we've gotten way off track. Mr. Cravens. I don't even know where to start on this. Can I ask any of the questions out there? Yes, you can. Mr. Baker, how much of Lucille Drive have you built and paid for? Well, it would be my partner and I. I would say about 75% of it so far. And then if I, I'll be doing this leg right here next. Matter of fact, I'm going to do that pretty soon. So I guess so. Why don't you want to pay for the rest of it? Well, do I want to pay for putting it through this guy's property? Well, why don't you do what the staff would like and move it? You know, see if you can't work with that. I mean, is there some reason you can't do that? Yeah, there is. Okay. I put in a one-sided street once. It's not economically. I'm not talking about half the street. They would like to see it. I mean, that's the last connecting piece, I guess. Well, Tracy. And they're afraid they won't get that because it's on the town. Tracy touched on something, and she said when one property owner comes in, property A, and they bring it through, and then property B. This is property A. This is property B. So when he comes in for a zone change, he'll put the street through, just like I had to do it from this point to this point. The thing is, you don't run a property line. I mean, you don't run a street down the middle of two property owners. It hasn't been done in the whole subdivision yet. It's always been one property owner, another property owner, not a fence line. I guess in my mind, the fact that those towers are there and everything might suggest that won't develop for a while. It's just speculation on my part, but I don't think that's the case. Okay. Tracy? Where's she go? She's leaving. It's not over yet. if Lucille Drive were built there in that fashion would this be an approvable plan I'm not following your question well if Lucille Drive was already built just like it's shown there on that radio property just say it was built and then he comes in with this other plan is that approval then I think it still is missing some of the components that we would want to see to meet the comprehensive plan. And I disagree with some of those. It's an adopted plan that you all adopted. It's an adopted plan that you all adopted. I know I didn't agree to much of it so anyway. So I mean you might have a more favorable opinion if that street were built that that could be rezone R3 the rest of it no okay it's Monday Tracy I guess from the standpoint of a property owner I have a real problem with trying to force a property owner of a an adjoining property to build something on somebody else's property we're not asking him to build anything on the adjoining property. We just want him to build a fair portion, not 13%. I see. I have a problem with that because that street, as it is shown, is on someone else's property. No, they're showing it on someone else's property. It doesn't have to be there. The engineer has drawn it that way to make you believe that that's the only location it can go in. Okay, but on the other map, that is what we have approved, correct? On the left and the right of the tower property, of the radio station property. The yellow that Tom has highlighted, Mr. Martin highlighted on this map, is approved and not built. Okay, so on the left, the yellow, and the one with the cul-de-sac on, or yeah, not the cul-de-sac, the roundabout. on the left it angles into this property it angles into the subject property yes this way and then they're yellow the yellow does yeah the on on the left no the left your other left okay my left yes that has already been approved correct okay and it angles into the radio station property Okay, so it's already set to go through the radio station property. Okay, so then I'm struggling with asking someone else to build something on a property they don't own. No, we are not asking them to build that. No, we want this connection, which is aimed in this direction, to not curve down like this, but to stay along here and then connect here and make Lucille come this way. They want it to swoop down so they can get another row of lots. That's their preliminary suggestion. The staff believes this geometrically is pointed in this direction. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions for either the applicant or the staff? If not, we will close as part of the hearing, and we'll bring it back to the commission for a motion or further discussion. yes mr. Lawrence comment sure possibility mr. mr. Berkeley touched on something a moment ago I'm not totally opposed to the zone change request here. I feel like we're trying to be forced into something with Lucille Drive, though. This request looks like it's got a drop-down deadline date of November 30th. it would if if there's if you're thinking about a postponement the latest week ago is November the ninth because the 30th pushes it past the 30th at the 90 day deadline right now the other way is the ninth the last time we meet yeah well no we were going to meet on the 30th but it wouldn't satisfy it now the applicant obviously could continue yeah modify that we can't that would be my suggestion to let them continue working on that in other words you would then propose a continuation okay or postponement until the ninth okay well okay that's okay i just don't want to put words in your mouth something like that to to try and come to some sort of agreement primarily on lucille drive it sounds like okay any other any other thoughts about that yeah okay mr fan this was something i hope we could avoid because the consequences of disapproving this I know Mr. Baker says he doesn't carry or just keep it, but I think he cares or he wouldn't push it on this hard where you are. So I'm not going to assume what you think, but what I am going to assume is that for us to disapprove this puts you down a year. If that doesn't bother you, we'll just vote it up or down on the merits. This development plan, as presented, is not approvable, in my opinion. And so if you forced us to go to this point and we go farther with it, I can't say how the rest of my commissioners will vote, but I can't vote for this development plan. If I don't like the development plan, I sure don't want to do the zoning because that just goes back 20 years to something that we don't want to start again. So that's my comment. I've made it twice. I can't make it anymore. Okay. I see Mr. Berkley. Do you want to say? Okay. Then Mr. Cravens and Ms. Plumlee. Yeah. I guess in the last question, Tracy indicated that he could run the Lucille Drive down his side of the property and then stop it. So you still don't have it connected to the other part. I mean he could decide to not even put in this this section here I mean you don't have to do that until he gets ready right so and I disagree with it not being a approval plan I mean just because those townhouses are up there and these are down there I mean I think it's I mean if there's two different owners you know that might be something I would buy up there develop but I don't care about the rest of that so I disagree with that but and mr. Baker stated that he had built most of Lucille Drive so I think he's done his share on that mr. Plumlee thank you mr. chair the staff has recommended disapproval because it does not agree with the comprehensive plan and that in itself is enough we've spent a long time playing let's make a deal and let's make a deal belongs on tv not in arena of the planning commission meeting those those can be worked out in another way and number one the staff said disapproval does not agree with the planning commission the plan the comprehensive plan so that that's enough for me thanks any other comments or a motion I don't agree that it doesn't agree with the comprehensive plan because I think there has been some testimony that some tweaking of this would. So I'm going to go with my original plan. I'm going to move for approval of plan MAR17-36. and I guess we need a few minutes for maybe some findings. Can we take a break? Well, first of all, you have to have a second. Well, true. Okay. It's been properly moved and second then that we approve PLN MAR 17-36 James D. Baker with findings yet to be determined. I suppose we'd have to take a break to find that out. So we'll take a break. I'm not a language smither, so I need a little help with that. We'll take it. Because we don't have findings for this. We can't have a motion without a – well, we don't. We have a motion, but we don't have findings. Let me ask you this. Is it even – am I on legal grounds to even entertain a motion without findings? I don't know. You can take a break. I think you got the answer, didn't you? Okay, then we'll take a five-minute break. Mr. Barclay? Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I want to withdraw my motion, and I want to move for continuance for two weeks. Is there a second to that? Okay, it's been moved now by Mr. Bill Berkeley and seconded by Mr. Mike Cravens that he would like to postpone or move for a continuance for two weeks. That would be November 9, 2017. Any discussion on that particular motion? Yes, sir. discussion just one statement I would hope that applicant everyone would recognize what we're doing here to give them a chance to try and resolve this item so that it could be approved otherwise you know there's gonna be a quite a delay here I'm afraid yeah mr. Owens I think you've kind of expressed what the chair's position is I heard mr. Baker indicate that he really didn't care about a postponement or continuance now in my view I'm willing to go along with what the body is but I think the point is is that if this is to be postponed the idea would be that there would be some movement made that would be accommodating and what have you so mr. Baker can I ask for indefinite postponement sure can and could someone explain to me what period of time that could be uh it indefinite means you have to make the you the applicant you get to make the call okay thank you i'll ask for indefinite postponement what you have to do you're asking someone on the commission to do that that's what you're saying yes i am okay thank you mr berkeley do you wish to continue your motion as is and i'm going to amend it to uh request an indefinite postponement Okay, do we have a second on that? Okay, now it's been properly moved and seconded that it would be an indefinite postman. I'm concerned on a couple of levels. You've already had the hearing, which it's not unusual for this to happen, but normally an applicant will withdraw. if you postpone indefinitely it may open up the door when it comes back to having to rehear it completely because it's a postponement. But that may or may not matter because it may be different. I don't know, but I just want you to be aware there's some potential consequences. But if the applicant wants to... i mean if he if he withdraws it'll you know we're gonna have to go through the notification process again but if it changes substantially on an indefinite postponement that's probably going to happen anyway so i think the staff would expect if the commission members change that we would make another presentation about the zone change if it were a year from now we would make a full presentation again. So what are we saying to him? I mean if he is asking for an indefinite postponement. I mean I think it definitely needs to be clear on the record then I think you all can vote to do that but it needs to be clear that that request is coming from him. Okay. Can I say one thing this is the last time I'm looking up. Okay. I did talk to the man who owned the radio station. He called me approximately two days ago and said, is it too late for me to zone my property with yours? And I said yes. So I want an indefinite postponement and maybe I can work with him to do something and solve everybody's problem. Thank you. Well, is it appropriate for an indefinite postponement or withdrawal? I don't know that it matters, but if it comes back with additional property added and that kind of thing, it'll probably have to be something new. That's what I thought. Well, either one, it kills it for the time being as such. Okay, so the question is, we have a motion for indefinite postponement for Mr. Berkley, is it? And a second by Mr. Cravens. Any discussion on the motion? Yes, sir, Mr. Patrick. My comment is, if I understand this correctly and we postpone this, we'd potentially have to hear it again. But if we continue it, we don't. The hearing's over. Is that correct? Well, if you continue it, you have to continue it to a date certain. And it sounds like if you continue that, and you have to do that in two weeks to meet the November 30th deadline to act on this plan under the statute. So it sounds like that's not going to be productive at this point based on what the applicant is telling us. So a postponement indefinitely will most likely require you to hear it again, but you're probably going to have to hear it again anyway, it sounds like, because it's going to substantially change. Okay. Any other? Yes, sir. And do we have an issue with the dates, too? I mean, we would have had to have acted on this by November 30th, right? You would, yes, but technically to meet with your meeting schedule and that date, you would have had, I think it's November 9th. Is that the date? Yes, it is. So, you know, another, I'm not trying to confuse the issue, but another potential option would be to continue it to November the 9th, at which time if, you know, and see where it is at that point. but if the applicant is telling you he wants to indefinitely postpone it with the possibility coming back with something different, that may trigger a whole new process anyway. Okay. I can't say to withdraw, so I can only say I think my motion would stand for indefinite. Okay. His motion stands for indefinite withdrawal. That's okay. And then the second indefinite postponement, I'm sorry, and then we've got a second for mr cravers any other discussion if not would you please vote when it comes up on your screens okay the motion passes for indefinite postponement or indefinite yeah okay It's 410, so Mr. Dunkel, we don't have to leave here until, what, 530? Mr. Chair, the next meeting in this room is at 530, so about 515 we would probably need to leave. Okay, about 515. Okay, we've got Jason Justice map amendment. It was set for an abbreviation, but I think someone wanted to. It's too late, they've gone. Well, that's the question. I don't know whether they got a representative. You all are here. It may be shorter. Thank you. Chairman Wilson, our next item is PLN MAR 17-37, and this is a request by Jason L. Justice. It's the staff's understanding, and I think the chair's understanding as well, that there were citizens here earlier this afternoon who were interested in this application, but they have spoken with the applicant out in the hallway, and they have had their questions addressed so we intend to move through the application in a more abbreviated manner thank you miss Wade said it perfectly the subject property is a portion of 6800 man o' war Boulevard man o' war Boulevard and the portion of the meadow oaks or subdivision that's requested for rezoning is less than five acres the subject property in total was rezoned in 2001 and it involved 143 acres but at this time the applicant is asking to rezone just five acres along Manowar Boulevard it's on the east side of Manowar and it is located in expansion area 2a the subject property again of the rezoning is a request to rezone from an EAR2 zone which is our expansion area residential 2 which allows residential density of between 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre they want to switch from EAR2 to a community center zone which is our CC zone the subject property is located along Manowar Boulevard between Polo Club which is to the lights going out to the southwest then we also have Blackford Parkway intersects Manowar Boulevard also to the south and west of the subject property and then Winchester Road which is to the north of the subject property a portion of this properties of 6800 has been developed and on our our zone map you can see where it has connected from Felicia Anna Lane on to to the rear or to the southeast of the subject property toward Greendale. But this portion of the farm is still vacant, and it's actually the southwest property line of the subject area to be rezoned is the entrance road for the existing farm and residence on the site. So this is the existing entrance from Manowar Boulevard looking to the southeast, and it is a tree line drive that comes back along, back to the, closer to where the existing development is on the site. There is a conditional use and a variance associated with this application, so we've posted both signs at the property. This is a view looking along Manowar Boulevard back towards I-64 and I-65, and you can see some, a little bit of development in the background. Those are the new apartments along Polo Club Boulevard. and then this is a view on manowar boulevard looking back looking towards Winchester Road to the north and one of the adjacent parcels also has a television tower on it for I think it's channel 36 at this location you can see that in the photograph as well the applicant is asking to rezone just this five acre portion of their property in order to do what they propose as a retirement community development and so this portion of their project would include mixed-use it would include a restaurant some probably retail and then dwelling units but the development plan shows a broader sense of what the retirement community would include which is an assisted living location as well as townhouses villas and cottages as they're labeled on the plan for more independent living so the thought is that those the individuals that would be living in the residential units and also the assisted living would utilize the community center zone and the uses within that for services and other I guess some dwelling units but mostly services associated with their needs within this community the previous recommendation for or the current recommendation i guess from the to from the 1996 expansion area master plan was for residential at this location and it was for overall density on the farm of between 316 and 696 dwelling units for this site itself between 14 and 29 dwelling units the applicant is proposing 22 dwelling units on that portion of their development plan so the staff sees where it falls within the density recommended by the expansion area master plan but in addition to that so we don't see a density increase or decrease which is a positive we still see the park road planned for in the eamp is already built on the blackford parkway on the blackford property there's a proposal for the retirement community and it's organized around a place there's an open space in cemetery that's the desire for our CC zones for them to be organized around a place a central location a plaza something of that nature and the staff sees that the applicant is meeting that principle of the expansionary master plan in addition the proposed mixed-use center is confined to kind of a discrete node there at man of war so it has frontage and access to an arterial road which the positive because we anticipate additional traffic for those uses in terms of the comprehensive plan the applicant also mentions in their justification that they believe it their plan meets this change meets the comprehensive plan in terms of several goals and objectives they mentioned well-designed neighborhoods and communities and in this case the staff agrees is providing a mixed use as well as on a larger sense mixed type housing mostly a retirement community for this portion of their development and the other piece for the comprehensive plan was theme d which speaks to providing accessible community services to meet health safety and quality of life needs for fayette county and certainly assisted living and that varied housing types provided would be available within this development so the staff did recommend approval of the proposed cc zone for this location we found it did meet the comprehensive plans goals and objectives and it's also supported by some of the concepts and principles of the expansionary master plan although this location itself was not designated for cc in the expansionary master plan and we feel that this design meets those principles and concepts, so. The staff made that recommendation contingent on approval of this development plan as well. See if there's any questions about the zone change, and if not, we'll turn it over to Cheryl for a development plan presentation. Mr. Martin will cover the conditional use and variance, and then Mr. Emmons has a traffic study report, so we'll try to. Okay, so. Thank you. Good afternoon. They did bring us in a revised plan, so everybody will see a gold sheet or yellow sheet. As Tracy was explaining, this is Manowar Boulevard and Feliciana, which is what ties in down here to Blackford Parkway. This is their main entrance to tie up from Manowar back into the subdivision. CC area is up here in this corner which in all aisles they show townhomes and cottages and this is the area for the assisted living facility which Tom will discuss in a little bit all of this is surrounded they have a large pond located in the middle of the property they have tennis courts to show and also like a gathering area near the pond with trail systems through the property as you can tell this is unchanged it only has a few sign offs from the different governmental agencies we had to denote the approval the conditional use which is what Tom will be discussing addition of any existing and proposed easements discuss parking spaces on private streets several of these the streets here are all private and we have several locations where they show additional parking for visitors we have to note building front orientation and landscaping towards Manowar Boulevard with this fronting on to the Manowar Boulevard we want to make sure that we have the proper landscaping and front view of the property to note the boardwalk location it looks like it's it's walking around the edge of the common area pedestrian access along Feliciana main entrance to be a width of six foot on the sidewalks we feel like those are the way to gather people to get them into the CC area therefore the idea is to have larger sidewalks for people to walk on to these areas discuss the intent to subdivide property with the different townhomes and cottages we didn't know if they were going to come in with a final record platen in the future and subdivide these label pedestrian access to the ER area north of the CC this property up here is also located or zoned EAR2 and with the CC area we were hoping to have the access into this also for people in the future to be able to access the CC there was some discussion questions about man of war Boulevard improvements as possible turn lanes to get into the property which Jimmy will be talking about also we'll go over the discuss the collector cross sections with the main entrance and clean sienna and their spacing is there any other questions questions thank you very straightforward yep are you gonna do both the conditional use and the variances I am Well, good. Barbara Rackers at this moment for your... Okay, Ms. Rackers. I am presenting to you the requested conditional use and the variance. You do have a report. Hopefully it's been distributed before you. And very simply, as you are well aware, this is an assisted living facility. It is part of a transitional elderly living development. all this of course is very consistent with your zoning ordinance your comp plan and the industry they are proposing I believe three stories with 120 beds 116 parking spaces and as I said it is a conditional in the AR2 conditional use that requires your approval and staff is recommending that you do approve this because obviously it's an integral part of this proposed development. In conjunction with this conditional use, this assisted living facility is three stories tall. And in order to meet requirements in the industry, they need higher ceilings. And they put their electrical and mechanical systems in these higher ceilings. It's a design element that is required so that they can meet the medical requirements in their industry. This variance is from 35 feet tall, which is your AR2, to 48 feet tall. Now, the 48 feet is the CC height that's allowable. So this assisted living facility in this location, it's 48 feet, would be consistent with what would be allowed in the CC. not that they're necessarily going to build it, but that it would meet that requirement. In the EAR, too, they need a variance. Staffs recommend approval of both the conditional use and the variance. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Where's Mr. Emmons? Is he? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. Yes, sir, I was hiding. I will continue with the abbreviated portion of our presentation here. At first, I'll let you know, I had struggled with this particular traffic impact study and your transportation system recommendations on this particular one because the traffic study as it was submitted seemed to kind of be, had a lot of, we were concerned about some of the assumptions in the beginning that led to conclusions that were very much for the proposed traffic system. However, if you took and swung that pendulum the other direction and kind of thought of a worst case scenario, we feel like that logically that would lead you into recommending improvements that might not actually be necessary for this particular uh case and and i i definitely want to thank our pedestrian and bicycle and pedestrian planner scott thompson who just this week he came up with another solution and reminded me that it's not a or b that there is a c and a d and and as we look at this particular thing and we worked with um and we worked with tony and uh the applicant and we worked with uh casey and traffic engineering and today we're in the last 24 hours we've really kind of turned around a new recommendation on this and i would say that the staff and the applicant are about 98 percent in accordance at this point in time so with that being said just kind of starting off with the big picture on the subject property you know where it's at but i need to kind of get you kind of you really have to in order to understand the transportation system on this you have to look at this with both a telescope and a microscope in order to understand the issues with this particular one so as we pull up the the state's functional classification of the streets you can see that we've got our arterials our the state has a major collector and a minor collector the major collector would be Polo Club Boulevard in the blue the minor collector the Park Road in in yellow the green would be the arterials some of the planned improvements in this area the kentucky uh kytc has plans to widen winchester road widen manowar boulevard which is a state road from the interstate to winchester road and then we're also very excited there was a study done that looked at the congestion on i-75 particularly at manowar and winchester road one of those recommendations was to actually tunnel a new street between sir barton way and polo club boulevard that would go under the interstate this would be a new street that would be for vehicles pedestrians bicyclists and and everything like that now i do not i wanted to give you kind of that big picture there are a lot of things in this area these are planned improvements but they are not planned to be built they're not programmed as far as in the project list but as development continues to occur in this area the uh the pressure for these improvements will will increase and their priorities will will increase in that area so as we take away those uh state road improvements we also look at our expansion area master plan and and plans that are approved in this area and there are two planned collectors that are not built that don't show up there's a collector street that will go through the justice property to the north that will connect winchester road into the subject property at feliciana way and the eamp has always recommended a uh a collector road that would also reach from winchester road and come in opposite of the park road so as we look a little bit closer at the subject property some of the things that that we were worried about our primary concern is that the main street from Manowar Boulevard to Feliciana Way that serves the assisted living facility in the CC area and goes right through the pond not through the pond but at the one end of the pond that is being proposed as a local street along with Feliciana Way which is previously been approved as a local street and continuing to be that we feel that with the intensification of the land use in this area with the other things that are going on especially the collectors system that's coming from Winchester Road into here we feel that with it would create problems in the future having collector level traffic on streets that were designed as local residential streets kind of where we were 24 hours ago we were going to make a recommendation that the main entryway and Feliciana be the typical 60 foot wide 40 60 feet of right-of-way 40 foot wide collector Street that's in our subdivision regulations we were recommending six foot sidewalks along manowar and all of our collector streets also identified in the in the traffic study and recommended by planning staff is that the entrance improvements for the main meadow oaks entrance on the manowar boulevard it does need left turn lane it does need improvements to manowar boulevard it needs a left turn lanes and right turn lanes coming into the subject property staff also uh recognized that based off of the traffic that would be generated by the the community center area the commercial uses in that property that the loop the that is the loop street that is closest to man-o-war is actually too close to man-o-war for to meet our subdivision regulations we feel that that would be a very unsafe recommend a very unsafe place to put a full intersection there both for vehicles pedestrians and bicyclists finally it was more of a policy recommendation that as we as we look at realigning the cc area getting rid of that that whatever we do that we pay special attention to creating a safe public a safe pedestrian environment for people to get to and use the CC area without feeling unsafe. Scott brought up the idea that, well, what we really need on this particular piece of property are some roundabouts indicated in concept by the black dots that I'm showing there. The roundabouts are, the roundabout designs, this is a this is not particularly the design that that we would want for this location because it's got a set it's a roundabout with a separate bike lane I think we're thinking bike lanes on the road facility in through here but the the concept of adding some roundabouts at the main entrance to the community center area and at feliciana way would solve basically our traffic capacity concerns it would solve a lot of our they are safer for pedestrians or safer for bicyclists they're safer for cars in general too because you get rid of that left turn movement and what we're really talking is kind of a context-sensitive design and i put this in the powerpoint presentation of just to kind of show you the type the types of things that we will be expecting when this comes in for a final development plan but ultimately the staff is recommending just to kind of skip to the good part if you look at the last page of our traffic study recommendation we do have four recommended changes to the development The first one being that provide a left turn and right turn lanes on Manowar Boulevard at the Meadow Oaks subdivision. I believe the applicant is in agreement with that. Relocate the street intersection that would be for the CC Loop Street to be at least 450 to 550 feet away from Manowar Boulevard in order to meet our subdivision regulations and improve safety. uh c uh staff is still recommending a six foot sidewalk along manawar manawar boulevard but the but the primary uh and and the impetus of how we got to you today to recommend approval instead of fighting about these things is that at the time of the final development plan the main entrance road in feliciana way she'll coordinate with district seven traffic engineering and our bicycle and pedestrian master planner to design a context sensitive design and roadway that would be pay special specific attention to pedestrians bicycles and the mobility and safety for all users on that road we believe that alternative designs use utilizing best management practices that are out there such as roundabouts either defined on street parking or or restricting on street parking for that lane markings pedestrian islands do everything that we need to do and look at those two roads in the context of what is being proposed and just an example of what we mean by that is that the the proposed use of the retirement community where they have the continuum of care they've got cottages and townhouses they've got the assisted living facility we we know what kind of traffic is generated from townhouses we know what kind of traffic is generated from single family homes we know what kind of traffic is generated from nursing homes but this but these newer types of continuum of care that are being proposed here are really kind of new creatures they've not really been studied so if if they came back with a design that had fairly typical townhouses and fairly typical residential developments we believe that it would be very important to get on street parking as a part of the overall design if if it's proven that that might not be as important then we could look at that design as we go in through here the most important uh the most important goals of this is to have that uh that flexibility at the at the final development plan stage to have that context sensitive design it's it's my understanding that the stat that the applicant is in is in agreement with three of the four three of the four recommendations that we are making uh the one that they uh that that we've been discussing is providing the six foot sidewalk along Manowar Boulevard. And I know it's been a long day, so I'll just kind of make it as easy as I can. As we look at our sidewalks along our major arterials and our collector streets, in 2017 we have recently done an inventory of all of our collector streets and arterials, and we've found that we are missing 56 miles of sidewalks on those major arterials. And as we're trying to create a network to make it so that people can walk and get to where they're going, because remember, walking and bicycling for some people is recreation, for others it's a necessity. So we feel like that that is an important thing and we feel it's important enough our preference would be to require at this preliminary development plan stage for them to show a cross section that had the six foot sidewalk along manil war boulevard i believe the applicant is has requested that that also be deferred to the final development plan and if you do agree with the applicant then we would suggest putting an asterisk on on the cross section go ahead and show the the sidewalk and put an asterisk on there that the that it would be resolved at the time of the final development plan all in all being said uh considering where we were i would say even 24 hours ago i'm i'm very pleased to be giving you an abbreviated presentation here today as far as there are the two uh items 15 and 16 on your revised conditions on your revised staff recommendations i i believe on 15 it's discuss improvements to manowar i believe that you could just change that one to denote improvements to manowar and then 16 i believe that you could just simply jettison the language that's there and adopt the uh recommendations as recommended in the transportation staff report for the four recommendations there i don't think that there's a need to reread all of that verbose language that we've put in there if you have any questions for me i know i have thrown a lot at you in a very very short period of time we've we've got a lot of background that I could give you if you want if you want it but I wanted to try and get us there any questions for mr. Edmunds I do note one thing this Monday my colleague here is noted a typo I think you've got two number sixes on the yellow sheet on the yellow sheet on the revised staff recommendations which one is it oh PLN MJDP I I think you're right the the regardless of the numbering the the conditions that are proposed on the yellow sheet are the conditions that were it'll be one last housekeeping thing there was a there is highlighted in red three words that that are different between my written staff report and what we're recommending to you today and that's adding the defined parking or parking restrictions you know in in this and once again it's it's asking the developer to to denote these things on the plan to kind of set the parameters for the discussion at the time of the final development plan I I do have some copies of the revised language if you want it but also if you go with the easy motion of as recommended by transportation staff don't know that you need that any other questions or any questions any comments I believe that concludes all of the staff presentations okay thank you Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Darby Turner here representing the applicant. I'm sure glad Jimmy kept it short and abbreviated. He did a great job. Just responding, and I'm going to try to be short as well. Just for the record, on the sidewalk issue along Man of War, we want to have those discussions at final development plan but our concern is one on the section from the interstate to Winchester Road there has been no requirement of sidewalks for what has developed so far secondly if the if man-of-war if that section is going to be redeveloped as the original man-of-war was if you recall sidewalks were included in the cross sections so we need to figure out where that is and the timing and so forth but we have some issues to whether that's our responsibility and so so but that's reserved the only open item I see on the on the revised staff report on the yellow sheet and maybe you could do 6a and 6b and solve your numbering problem and but it was the the discuss the intent to subdivide the property and as was said there in the zoning or the subdivision committee meeting I think it's the intent that there may be some large tracks within this but essentially these are intended to be in a condominium style or a leasehold style so that we're not going to be subdividing individual units so that I don't know how you resolve that on here but that's that's the answer and otherwise I think we are in full agreement with the staff and would request your approval of both the zone changes of the conditional use the variance and the development preliminary development plan and if I can answer any questions I'll be glad to. Right, Mr. Penn. I want to compliment you all for building a CC that's actually going to have residential in it. I've waited a long time to see that and I really would like to take pictures of that and send it to some of our other developers who have failed on that miserably. Thank you Mr. Pennant. I failed to introduce Mr. Justice who is here, the developer, and of course Tony who's the engineer and it was a rough battle with the neighbors out there now that's that's a result of a bike accident bicycle accident and he's he needs to understand he's growing older any any other constructive comments to come okay thank you thank you there's no one else here today ladies and gentlemen so with that we're ready for motion we'll actually need okay what if I may I would just like to assist you in your motion staff would recommend that on all your discussion items and Jimmy made his recommendations on 15 and 16 but it would be to state denote the condition shall be resolved at final development plan and And I think that takes care because you have several discussion items. And I think that would be the appropriate time to deal with that. And even again, the intent to subdivide the property, they may not want to do that to the residential portion, but they have a commercial portion that they may find it valuable to subdivide for financing something like that. And staff would have no problem in working with them at the time of the final. Just thought that might make things easier. Thank you. Okay. Like I said, we'd like to have three motions. I'm making the assumption here we need a motion on the zone, then we'll meet one on the development plan, and then we'll meet one more, and we'll combine the requested conditional use and the requested variance, if that's okay. I'm sure we go. Okay. Who's ready to go? ready to go you raise your hand and you point to him okay mr. Cravens I'll take a stab at this okay I want to move approval plan 17-37 for the reasons provided by staff and can I include the conditional use in that no not yet just take it one at a time that's the song change so we'll take that one we've got a second on that we've got mr. Cravens from making the motion mr. Brewer second that we approve PLN-MAR 17-37 Jason L. Justice with the conditions provided by staff. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, that motion carries. Now, if you would, go to page 6 and we'll do the development plan. All right. All right, I'm going to move approval of the revised staff recommendation for the development plan 17-99 denoting uh defer to the final record or final development plan 13 15 and 16 i believe okay it's been moved by mr craven second by mr patrick brewer that we approve pln mjdp 17-99 ashford or village meadow oaks mr craven sorry number eight was a discussed item as well did you intend for that to also be okay uh yeah number eight can go to the final development plan and and adopt resolve recommend the staff report on the traffic study and then uh denote two number sixes y'all got all that okay you all have all that information okay good and we'll uh go along with the staff of recommendations the major motion has been made by mr craven second by mr brewer that we approve pln mjdp 17-99 ashford oaks village with the conditions provided by staff and the noted changes any discussion on the motion now please vote when it comes up on your screen thank you now let's go back and we'll take the commission chair move approval of the requested conditional use and uh requested variants okay that was okay it's been again moved with mr craven second by mr brewer that we approve the requested conditional use as well as the request of variance any discussion on that motion not would you please vote when that comes up on your screens thank you okay thank you all we have a couple of other things post 48. We'll move to page 6. Mr. Taylor. If you all are ready, I'll go ahead and get started. We'll be real quick. I believe it's under tab 5 of your notebook. There's a subreg amendment, 2017-3. It's an amendment to update the major subdivision plan process. We've gone over this in committees, and it was recommended for a referral at the time the subdivision committee did again in the 2013 comprehensive plan there was a recommendation in the implementation table to allow staff to review and to approve final record plats in order to expedite review times on plans and reduce development costs in 2014 we brought that up to the planning commission we discussed it at work session we talked about some solutions and then it it sort of went away at that point there wasn't enough interest to move forward at that time during this comprehensive plan we brought it it back up again i wanted to bring it back before you as the staff still believes that this is a very appropriate way to handle final record plats we want to point out again that final record plats are a ministerial plan where the developers met all the requirements of the subdivision regulations that they are entitled to an approval on those plans but the thorough review of the final preliminary subdivision plans happens at the preliminary plan stage and at the time of final record plat is simply a recordation of public infrastructure that has already been constructed the staff is comfortable in their ability to review these plans and address comments from the technical committee ensure that those conditions have been met record those plats in in such a fashion but we also reserve that right anytime under our subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance to refer a plan to the Planning Commission where there's any outstanding item should the technical committee have a condition that the applicant is unable or unwilling to meet we bring that to the Planning Commission we do that currently further in updating the land subdivision regulations we wanted to address an issue with the improvement plan progress report move that from a 30% of design to a 50% of design statement so that we could have a little more information on that improvement plan progress report and make it a little more clear in the subregs that we are requesting that to be submitted at the time they seek their land disturbance permit and their notice to proceed there's no change whatsoever to what the Planning Commission is seeing there would just be a slightly different timing to when the Planning Commission would see that 30% report that is all at this time again the staff recommends approval of the sub reg amendments to articles 4 and 5 of the sub regs first reasons to propose the revision will expedite the recordation time considerably by eliminating the subdivision committee review and the Planning Commission review as well as the second round of technical review Planning Commission's opportunity again to review those full subdivision designs is most appropriate at the preliminary subdivision plan stage and again revising the timing of the submission of the improvement plan progress report ensures that the document is submitted prior to the notice to proceed but does have no material effect on the Planning Commission's core view review of that document in any way from the previous process shot through that pretty quickly anybody has any questions on what it is we're trying to do here I hope we've kept you guys fully in the loop through the work session and it's a committee process but again if anyone has any questions be happy to try to answer them mr. mr. Till I have listed 10 questions and two objections all right well let's get to it actually I'm kidding I couldn't resist any other questions or comments from our colleague if not mr. Cravens would you like to make a motion on this since you've worked as hard as anybody to get this thing straight yeah move this I'm going to move approval of SRA 2017-3. I think they did a good job on this. Okay. Mr. Craven moved. Ms. Karen Mundy seconds that we approve SRA 2017-3 amendments to update the major subdivision plan process. Any additional? May I amend his motion? No, I'm kidding. I see. This is trick-or-treat, isn't it? The motion is to approve SRA 2017-3 amendments to update the major subdivision plan process. Any other discussion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Mr. Wilson, if I may, just as we're finishing this up, I want to make it clear that the staff report recommends that this item be implemented at the start of the next year, January 1, with the January filing, so that we have time to do a little more education and outreach to folks and let them know how that's happening. it'll be implemented in 2020 with the new meeting filing schedule we're all getting flaky here this okay well i think we got you uh would you please vote on the motion when it comes up on your screens please thank you and your your timing has been noted for the record so okay thank you next we have two initiations of subdivision regulations this is on i think page seven of your agenda is that right this is an app or a proposal by the county clerk to adjust the size for plats and it was initiated actually by some of the surveyors in the county and they approach the county clerk to request that they be allowed to create plats that are larger than what our subdivision regulations provide for so currently the regulations limit plat size to 17 by 22 but the state law allows a larger size and they would like to be able to provide that size as well here in fayette county so the change to the subregs is very very minor i think it's shown on the purple sheet here we would just ask the planning commission to initiate that change and we would provide a mailing in early november to our neighborhood associations and then it would be on the planning commission's agendas in december i'm going to ask mr frank penn to make a motion on this one if you would because he needs that you know his eyesight's getting a little Oh, it's tempting, but I'm late. I move the initiation of the proposed Texas Amendment of the land subdivision regulation. Okay, Mr. Penn moves. Ms. Plumley seconds that we initiate the subdivision regulation amendment for final records of flat size. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. thank you motion carries meetings now go ahead we have one last text amendment for your initiation we let you know at the last committee meeting or work session that we're looking to update the B6P zoning ordinance part of the zoning ordinance we expect to have a draft of that to you probably at your next if we mr. Duncan cancels your November work session then we'll brief you on it at your November committees but full text and for your action will be at the December committees and your December hearing we're looking to incorporate and incentivize some residential in the B6P alleviate some parking issues to free up some additional square footage for our B6P zones and we'll have text of that out to you guys here in probably about next two weeks thank you you are you moving miss miss plumley moves ms karen monday seconds that we initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to update the planned shopping center b6p zone any discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on your screens thank you we've got a couple of other small items here we can take care of one of the adoption of the 2018 wait yeah we would the staff would ask the Planning Commission to adopt our schedule and filing meeting and filing schedule for 2018 I believe we presented that last week to the Commission at their work session and we will continue to meet on Thursday afternoon so okay Okay, Mr. Brewer moves. Ms. Plumlee seconds that we adopt the official meeting and filing schedule for 2018. Any discussion on the motion? In the end, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you for that. We've got one other final thing, and that is, Mr. Duncan, would you kind of brief us on what happened at the council meeting and where they are and how that's going? Thank you, Mr. Chair. last week the I'm sorry earlier this week the council held another staff meeting ad hoc committee meeting with staff that was Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock where they discussed the theme e which was the theme that deals with the urban service boundary and they had a robust discussion about that and and did not make any changes to that at this time but they they just completed their discussion then tuesday evening at five o'clock there was a public hearing in this room it was about a two-hour hearing the room was overflowing there were a lot of comments on a variety of issues economic development was was strong among them but also the urban service boundary and other issues small area planning neighborhoods and that kind of thing so uh the same kinds of things that we're accustomed to hearing uh it was a good turnout and i was i was very pleased at this point the next Action by the planning commission or the council will be on Tuesday November 7th at 11 o'clock They had their next ad hoc committee meeting scheduled for this room staff will be present at that time Any questions they have as a result of the public input meeting or the public hearing or anything else that they have We will attempt to help them resolve that at that time Their intention is then that afternoon on Tuesday the 7th to read this out at their 3 o'clock work session so that it gets first reading on Thursday, November the 9th, followed by a second reading the next week. Should there be any changes made to it, we will know by the end of the morning on Tuesday the 11th, or Tuesday the 7th, I'm sorry, at 11 o'clock. We will be happy to keep you all apprised of that. Right now, things are still fluid, and there will be some things to work out, and we'll be trying to help them get to that place over the next week or so. Thank you for that update, Mr. Dunkey. Any questions? Thanks again for that update. Thanks, commission members, for your service. Without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.