# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - July 13, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 13, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5866 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5866?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-07-13 - **Last revised**: July 13, 2023 - **Length**: 7,407 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on July 13, 2023, at 1:31 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, all of which were approved, including amendments for Peninsula Lot 2, Melrose Addition Block E & J. Barringer Banker Property, Wyndale Subdivision Lot 2A, and South End Park Unit 2 (Davis Park). The meeting involved a total of 12 motions and votes throughout the proceedings. No public comments were heard during this session, and no presentations were recorded as part of the meeting activities. ## Attendance The following members were present at the July 13, 2023 meeting: • Larry Forester • Judy Worth • Ivy Barksdale (arrived late) • Zach Davis • Robin Michler • Janice Meyer • Bruce Nicol • Graham Pohl • Headley Bell All nine members were in attendance, with Ivy Barksdale arriving after the meeting had begun. No members were absent from the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included twelve formal votes, with all motions receiving unanimous approval from the board members present. **Administrative Items** The board unanimously approved the June 8, 2023 meeting minutes [timestamp: 00:30], with Judy Worth making the motion and Graham Pohl providing the second. All eight members present voted in favor. The board also unanimously approved performance bonds and letters of credit [timestamp: 02:00], with Robin Michler motioning and Judy Worth seconding. **Postponements** Six development projects were postponed to the August 10, 2023 meeting: • **PLN-MJDP-23-00030**: Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 (AMD) was postponed [timestamp: 05:00] on a motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Judy Worth • **PLN-MJDP-23-00029**: Red Mile Mixed Use Development (AMD) was postponed [timestamp: 07:00] on a motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Janice Meyer • **PLN-MJDP-18-00004**: Triple Stars Property was postponed [timestamp: 10:00] on a motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Headley Bell • **PLN-MJDP-22-00045**: Distillery District West (U-Haul Lexington) (AMD) received an indefinite postponement due to floodplain issues [timestamp: 12:00], with Headley Bell motioning and Judy Worth seconding • **PLN-MJDP-23-00032**: Homer C. Ratliff Property (AMD) was postponed [timestamp: 15:00] on a motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Janice Meyer • **PLN-MJDP-23-00037**: Newtown Corporation Industrial Park (ABC Storage) (AMD) was postponed [timestamp: 18:00] with Robin Michler motioning and Judy Worth seconding **Approvals** Four development projects received approval with conditions: • **PLN-FRP-23-00015**: Peninsula, Lot 2 (AMD) was approved subject to conditions and finding for access easement [timestamp: 20:00] • **PLN-FRP-23-00016**: Melrose Addition, Block E, & J. Barringer Banker Property (AMD) was approved with conditions and waiver for sanitary sewer [timestamp: 25:00] • **PLN-FRP-23-00017**: Wyndale Subdivision, Lot 2A (AMD) was approved with conditions and finding for access easement [timestamp: 30:00] • **PLN-MJDP-22-00085**: South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park) was approved subject to conditions [timestamp: 35:00] All votes included participation from Larry Forester, Judy Worth, Zach Davis, Robin Michler, Janice Meyer, Bruce Nicol, Graham Pohl, and Headley Bell. Ivy Barksdale joined the meeting and participated in votes starting with the Newtown Corporation Industrial Park item. ## Peninsula, Lot 2 (AMD) [timestamp: 20:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-FRP-23-00015, an amendment for Peninsula, Lot 2. The proposed amendment seeks to create 30 buildable lots and 1 HOA (Homeowners Association) lot within the development. Key speakers during the discussion included Cheryl Gallt and Rory Kahly, who presented details about the subdivision amendment and addressed questions from the commission. The amendment proposal included plans for residential development that would significantly expand the buildable area within Peninsula, Lot 2. The creation of 30 individual buildable lots represents a substantial residential development project for the area. Staff recommended approval of the amendment, but with several important conditions that must be met before final approval. These conditions included: • Acceptance of the proposed drainage system to ensure proper water management throughout the development • Acceptance of the sewer system infrastructure to serve the new lots • Approval of proposed street names and addresses for the development The commission discussed these conditions and the overall impact of the proposed subdivision. The drainage and sewer system requirements were particularly important given the scale of the development and the need to ensure adequate infrastructure to support 30 new residential lots. After reviewing the proposal, discussing the conditions, and hearing from the presenters, the commission voted to approve the Peninsula, Lot 2 amendment. The approval was contingent upon the developer meeting all the specified conditions related to infrastructure acceptance and addressing requirements. This approval allows the project to move forward to the next phase of development, pending satisfaction of the outlined conditions regarding drainage, sewer systems, and street naming protocols. ## Melrose Addition, Block E, & J. Barringer Banker Property (AMD) [timestamp: 25:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-FRP-23-00016, an amendment to subdivide one lot into two lots within the Melrose Addition, Block E, and J. Barringer Banker Property. Tom Martin and Pastor Don Hamilton served as key speakers during the discussion of this subdivision proposal. The amendment sought to divide a single existing lot into two separate parcels. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision amendment with several conditions. The approval conditions included requirements for acceptance of both drainage and sewer systems to ensure proper infrastructure for the new lots. Additionally, a waiver for sanitary sewer requirements was included as part of the recommended conditions. The commission ultimately approved the subdivision amendment, allowing the property owner to proceed with dividing the single lot into two separate buildable lots within the Melrose Addition area. ## Wyndale Subdivision, Lot 2A (AMD) [timestamp: 30:00] The planning commission reviewed application PLN-FRP-23-00017 for the Wyndale Subdivision, Lot 2A amendment. The proposed development would create 20 buildable townhome lots and 1 homeowners association (HOA) lot on the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Cheryl Gallt and Mark McIntosh, who presented details about the subdivision amendment and addressed questions from commissioners. The amendment required several technical considerations, including the acceptance of drainage and sewer systems to serve the proposed townhome development. Staff also recommended a finding for an access easement to ensure proper ingress and egress for the subdivision. The planning commission ultimately approved the Wyndale Subdivision amendment with conditions. The approval included requirements for the acceptance of both drainage and sewer infrastructure systems, ensuring the development would have adequate utilities. Additionally, the commission made a finding regarding the access easement as part of the approval conditions. The approved amendment will allow the developer to move forward with creating the 20 townhome lots plus the HOA lot, subject to meeting all the specified conditions related to infrastructure and access requirements. ## South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park) [timestamp: 35:00] The commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-22-00085 for South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park), which had been previously approved but was brought back to ensure compliance with Article 9-6(b) of the Zoning Ordinance regarding floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. Key speakers Tom Martin and Clay Johnson presented the updated proposal to the commission. The primary issue addressed was the project's compliance with FAR regulations, which measure the ratio of total floor area to the size of the lot on which the building is constructed. To resolve the compliance issue, the applicant took the step of purchasing additional land. This acquisition increased the total lot size, thereby bringing the project's floor area ratio into compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements without requiring modifications to the building design or reducing the proposed floor area. The commission reviewed the updated land acquisition and confirmed that the additional property successfully addressed the FAR compliance concerns that had been identified. With the expanded lot size, the project now meets all applicable zoning requirements under Article 9-6(b). Following the presentation and review of the compliance measures, the commission approved the South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park) application. The approval allows the project to proceed with the previously approved development plans, now that the FAR requirements have been satisfied through the strategic land acquisition. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of June 8, 2023 minutes - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-MJDP-23-00030** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00029** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Red Mile Mixed Use Development (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-18-00004** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Triple Stars Property - **PLN-MJDP-22-00045** — postponed (8-0): Indefinite postponement of Distillery District West (U-Haul Lexington) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00032** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Homer C. Ratliff Property (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00037** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Newtown Corporation Industrial Park (ABC Storage) (AMD) - **PLN-FRP-23-00015** — passed (9-0): Approval of Peninsula, Lot 2 (AMD) - **PLN-FRP-23-00016** — passed (9-0): Approval of Melrose Addition, Block E, & J. Barringer Banker Property (AMD) - **PLN-FRP-23-00017** — passed (9-0): Approval of Wyndale Subdivision, Lot 2A (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-22-00085** — passed (9-0): Approval of South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park) --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's now 1.31. It's July 13th. Welcome. We're in a new setting for now. For the commission members, we're going to try and use the new electronics here to do our voting. We won't raise hands. I will let you know how that will go. but right now let's try it. So does it come up there? Yes, abstain, and no? Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, we're going to stop that. Cancel? We'll get back to there at some point. All righty. So first up on the agenda, the approval of minutes. This is the June 8th, 2023 minutes. Floor is open for a motion. Ms. Meyer? I move for approval of the June 8th, 2023 minutes as presented. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. And let's vote via the new system. How do we say this? Is it sure? That's the brand? That's what's on there. Okay. You got it, Bruce? Did you vote? Okay, good. All right. Motion passes with eight votes. Thank you. So you can see it down your way? Yes. Can you not see it yet? Yeah, yeah. Okay. All right. Good deal. Good deal. All righty. Next up, I want to kind of skip through. We have performance bonds and letters of credit. If we would, that's on page 8, item C. The floor is open for the approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Mickler? I move to approve the performance bonds and letters of credit. Okay. Second. It's worth beating you there. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Please vote via the system here. Okay, motion passes. Eight votes. Boom. All righty. Thank you. Any postponements and withdrawals? Staff? Not seeing any? We do? Yes, Mr. Murphy? Thank you. Item F, PLNM JDP 2330, Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8, Amended, 1061, Providence Place Park Way. I represent the developer on there. We are still working on revising our plan, and we know that needs to go back through the subcommittees, so we're requesting a one-month postponement on that. Okay, and that's the August 10th meeting. Yes, sir. Mr. Murphy. All right, thank you. Any questions of that recommendation? If none, the floor is open for a motion. Ms. Meyer, did you? I'm sorry. I thought I saw your hand. It's okay. Well, I'll move for postponement of PLN and JDP 30 Kingston Hall as requested by the applicant. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Please vote. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Okay. Are there any other? Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Mark McIntosh with Vision Engineering. on page five. Yeah, bottom of the page, it's development plan 23, 29, Red Mile, mixed-use development. We'd like to request a one-month postponement. We're scaling back on the number of townhomes in the projects, so we're trying to decide whether to go forward or not. Okay. But that'd be a one-month postponement until August 10th. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Wirth? Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 2329 Red Mile Mixed Use Development to August 10th as requested by the applicant. Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion? I'm going to show you a second. Second. Ms. Meyer, please vote via the system here. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. All righty. Are there any others? Okay. Such a new layout, I know. I'm used to staying there. We have several to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman. The first item is on page three under your development plans. Item A, this is Major Development Plan 18-4, Triple Stars property. This will be the seventh postponement for these gentlemen. Received an email from them saying they are 100% for sure going to be ready to go in 30 days. They're very confident. They haven't pulled anything off yet, but, again, they did respond with a request for a one-month postponement. Okay. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Davis? Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of PLN and JDP 18-4 to our August 10th. Yes, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Second by Mr. Bell. Please vote via the system. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. The next item on your agenda is on page four for postponement. This is item B at the top of the page. This is Major Development Plan 22-45, Distillery District West, U-Haul. Staff has been in communication with the applicant's attorney, and they're requesting an indefinite postponement at this time so they can continue to work on issues that they have on that site. As you're all aware, there's floodplain issues on the site as well as use issues, et cetera. And they are continuing to work on that, but they have requested an indefinite postponement. Okay. The floor is open. Mr. Chair? Yes. Mr. Bill? Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via the system here. Motion passes unanimously. All right. And moving along with postponements on page 7, item G. This is Major Development Plan 23-32, the Homer Ratliff property, and this happens to be the Distillery District East as opposed to the West where U-Haul is. And they are requesting a one-month postponement. There's some interesting issues on this property, zoning compliance, conditional zoning issues popped up requires some legal evaluation. They're in the process of hiring legal representation to look into that issue. So they're requesting a one-month postponement on that plan as well. Okay. The floor is open for motion for the one-month postponement. Move to postpone MJDP 2332, Homer Ratliff for one month. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, second. Ms. Meyer, please vote via Granicus. Oh, sorry. Assistant. It's hard. Yeah. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All righty. And, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page 8, item H, Major Development Plan 23-37, Newtown Corporation Industrial Park. They have requested a one-month postponement because they have design issues they continue to work on on this property. It's a mini-warehouse development, and they've got some design and some issues with it that they're still working on. They requested a one-month postponement. Okay. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Mickler? I move to postpone PLN MJDP 23-37 Newtown Corporation Industrial Park to the August 10th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Yes. Seconded by Ms. Worth. Please vote. It's a little different. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. That was a good trial. That's it? That's it? All right. So it should put us on page two. Under final subdivision plans, PLN FRP 2315, Peninsula Lot 2. We are here looking at plan FRP 2315, the Peninsula Lot 2. This is located off of Squires and Peninsula Way. We have an area right here we had a development plan in for townhomes. And so they have come in with a final record plat to subdivide it into these individual townhomes. With that, they have an access easement that's going to lead in through here to create frontage for these lots. why you'll also have a copy of a finding for your approval so with this we have our typical sign-off conditions as listed here engineering traffic office Forrester bike green space utilities US Postal Service and then the idea of making a finding all these these townhomes here and these town here homes here will all have street frontage but the ones in the rear will have it off of the access easement and we've done this in other areas too so with that we have a recommendation of approval make sure that they have an easement maintenance note as to who's going to maintain this access easement it's in an HOA area because all the area surrounding the townhomes is HOA so it'll all be maintained by the HOA. So with that, I'll open it to you all if there's any other comments or questions. Are there any comments or questions for staff? Yes. Mr. McClure. Yeah, I have a question. On the staff recommendations, there's a item 14, resolve pedestrian facilities for all dwelling units. Just out of curiosity, what was the discussion on that? We're on Peninsula on page two. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, that's why I'm in the wrong recommendations. Well, that'll answer that question. I'm usually the one who does that. Oh, you were throwing that question? Yeah, I withdraw that question. Okay. Okay. Other questions? Okay. Not seeing any. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. We understand the conditions as well as the findings and request approval. How you doing, Mr. Kaley? Good. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Are there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Please do so by coming up to the podium. All right, well, then the floor is open for a motion Yes, mr. Davis can this be done in the form of one motion or do we need one for the plan itself and one for the findings that we can include can we include the findings with the your motion I Got a head shaking. Yes Yes, okay Then mr. Chairman I move for approval of PLN FRP 2315 including the staff report, the finding for use. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Oh. No, that's okay. Yes. My eyes was on you. I'm sorry. Okay. All right. So we're going to vote via the system here. All right. And that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. That put us on PLN FRP 23-16, Melrose edition. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, that item is, in fact, a final record plat that's been brought to you. It is the Melrose edition, Block E and J. This is an area right here. They're proposing to subdivide this parking lot. It's associated with the church in this location. This is Thompson Road down to Manchester Street. Here's the borough. And then, of course, Thompson goes on up and heads out to Leastown Road. This is our recycling center, the government recycling center right here. This subdivision of this parking lot has come about through the ongoing discussions. to address some parking issues that exist in this area due to the success of the borough and the fact that they have a lot of shows and a lot of activities and that sort of thing. And you all heard about this. You know that in this area there have been parking issues and conflicts. So the church had entered into negotiations with the borough, and they are subdividing this property roughly right through here to allow that to be sold to the borough for additional parking. It is zoned I-1. The entire lot itself, the original lot in this property, actually has R-1C, B-1, and then this industrial I-2 area that, of course, is associated with the original zoning for much of this area because it was an industrial area. There's no development plan required in this case, and one does not exist. I-1. What's interesting about this and this small little subdivision to create this, again, it meets the regs in terms of size, frontage, that sort of thing. However, the sanitary sewer, of course, is an issue. That's the subject of the waiver. The sewer system, the closest manhole is up in this area. It would require significant on-site, off-site work to provide public sewer per the land subdivision regulations to this lot that's being created. And since it's a parking lot, there's really no need at this time for sanitary sewer. So staff has reviewed this, and we're recommending approval of the waiver, again, to create this lot. Let me, there you go. That kind of shows you a little bit better. Existing church, the subdivision, and again, the Y in the road. And as I said, there's public sewer all the way up in here, a manhole that they would have to try to get to. And, again, we're recommending approval subject to the conditions you can see on the report, which includes that they need to denote clearly on the plan that should lot two be developed in the future for any use other than a parking lot, then public sanitary sewer service shall be provided to the approval of the Division of Engineering and the Division of Water Quality. So that's a flag. Should, in the future, something happen, that property, somebody, you know, wants to buy the property and put something on there, well, they're going to have to have public sewer. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the final record plat. You can see there were very few conditions other than standard sign-offs, along with the waiver. and then we are asking if they clearly denote access into the parking lots on this final record plat. Okay, thank you. Is there any questions for staff? Okay, Mr. Martin, no questions. Applicant? Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if this gentleman, there we go, here we go. He's not the surveyor that did the work. He's out of town on a vacation. Chairman, Planning Commission, we just ask you to approve what he's just put before you. I'm the pastor of Thompson Road Baptist Church, Don Hamilton. So if you have any questions, we'll try to answer those for you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Great pastor. Thank you. As anyone that would like to speak on this particular application, please do so by stepping up to the podium. If not, the floor is open for a motion. And remember, we do have the waiver. Yes, Ms. Meyer. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN FRP 2316 Melrose Edition Block E and J with the 13 conditions and also recommend accepting the findings for the waiver of the land subdivision regulations. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Marksdale. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote via the system here. Okay. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So let's put us next. Still on page 2, PLN FRP 23-17, Wendell Subdivision. And you also should have a copy of findings for an access easement on this one also. This property is, oops, okay. This is Clay's Mill Road, Higby Mill Road. This property is located right here at the end of Higby Mill and Cornwall. We have Manowar Boulevard coming around here. They have a development plan in for townhomes in this area. Oh, another thing is we have floodplain. I needed to point that out. We have floodplain, and they are working on a LOMAR at this time, and I'll let you have him explain that because that's one of the conditions as to where they are in the process. But you can see they have the townhomes. Oops, there we are. This is Man of War, and these are the townhomes. We have a floodplain shown coming through and picking up these last couple townhomes. And so they're working on a LOMAR at this time, and that is one of the conditions is to resolve the status of the LOMAR. So with this, they'll have an HOA for all the open area, and then you can see there's a driveway and access easement, which will be on the front of all these town homes, and that's where they'll have access. They will not have access on Higby Mill Road itself, but on the access easement. So with that, you'll see that we have our typical sign-offs. The first, you know, non-typical sign-offs, we just asked for adjoining street and property and boundaries with dash lines, provided that you all make a finding for the use of an access easement for their frontage. And then the last condition was to resolve the status of the LOMAR. They have been working on it, and where they are in the process, I'm not quite sure that's the engineer can really answer for you. With that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Okay, any questions for staff? Thank you. Applicant? Mark McIntosh, Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Mark McIntosh with Vision Engineering. Yeah, the LOMER is a letter of map provision and through FEMA that works with ASVIL plans and drawings. So we need the townhomes to move further, kind of complete the parking, those type of details before LOMER's provided to FEMA. So it's just the steps are taking place. We have a finished floor elevation set on each of these lots, and that's through our design drawings and design calculations. But we're agreeable to the presentation that Cheryl provided and staff provided and the report, the findings that was provided for the access season. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Now, Mr. Bell? There were some questions in our subdivision committee. Are you on? The red light's not on. Thank you. the building of the townhomes before the process and how the LOMAR all fit into that. As I recall, as long as staff's happy, I'm happy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you remember anything? Yeah, what I'm remembering is that the major issues got addressed in the CLOMAR, and the rest of it was just procedural after the fact. Am I remembering that correctly? We're at the CLOMER, the certificate of letter of MAPA revision was provided in 2018, which allowed us to move forward with the design plans. Okay. And you said, but just to remember, I'm remembering correctly, that these townhomes would be built at a higher elevation than normal just to protect in case there is higher water in the area. Is that right? Right. At least a couple feet above that. Okay. Okay. Yes, Mr. Mickler. You fine? Yeah, I'm okay with that. You okay? Okay. That comes back, you know, the higher elevation. Mr. Mickler. This is just sort of a question out of interest. Did you all, or there probably have been discussions about access to South Elkhorn Creek as an amenity, as well as not just for the floodplain, but as an open space or greenway amenity? That's a good question. We can speak to the home builder, Mr. Atkins, about what he can provide there. This is applied, so I'm not sure if we had those details on the development plan. Sure. But, yeah, that's a really good question. It should be explored. Thanks. Thank you. I don't see any more questions there. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay. If not, we'll bring it back to the commission. The floor is open for a motion. And we do have the finding for the easement. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move for approval of PLN FRP 2317, including the staff report on the finding for the use of an access easement. Thank you. Second. And we have a second by Mr. Bell. Please vote. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now, put us on page four. PLN MJDP 22-85 South End Park, Unit 2 Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission this is a major development plan that you all saw just recently it's been brought back to you as a continued discussion item this as you can see is, oops I didn't mean to do that, here we go Oliver Lewis Way as it heads down towards South Broadway, Scott Street DeRudy. And this is, of course, the Davis Bottom, so it's been redeveloped and is in the process of being redeveloped. And this is the area on the development plan where there's mixed use, and this is the area of the apartments. Of course, as you know, Scott Street is the last phase of the transportation system that's intended to cross over Broadway and go on down someday in the future. Now, here is the final development plan. Again, this was the mixed-use building where they're going to have classrooms and training, and they added a unit, and you can see access. None of this has changed. None of this has changed. The number of units, 72 units, 132 bedrooms, nothing's changed. Here's your sound wall back in here. Again, parking access, the buildings are everything. an interesting little situation popped up in that group residential projects are governed by the underlying zone that they're located in, R3, R4, that sort of thing. And they also fall under Article 9 group residential projects. Article 9 allows a FAR bonus, but you have to go through a public notification process to get that. and they had accounted for that in their site statistics, but the underlying zone they did not meet. They exceeded the underlying zone, the R3 zone, in terms of their FAR, floor area ratio. That's the total square footage of the buildings. It's not the lot coverage. That's just the footprint. So we talked with them about that and how best to rectify it, And so they purchased a little additional acreage from the owner, the nonprofit, the Land Trust. So they've added this chunk of open space right in here, and that's allowed them to bring their numbers into compliance. And that's why they're here before you today to get your approval on this plan that now has the additional acreage and we'll meet the FAR under the R3. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? Yes, Mr. Neckler. I do have a question, Mr. Martin. So we're looking at a project that is an affordable housing project in Davis Bottom. They did not meet the floor area ratio even though we approved this. And in order to rectify that, the affordable housing developer is required to purchase a third of an acre? They're required to meet the requirement. Okay. And to do that, they purchased some additional land so that they could meet the requirement. Okay. Tell them the other options. Do you have a different option? Well, under Article 9, they have an option. Again, they have to go through a public input process and notify people. And then, yeah, and they're not allowed to vary open space in that regard either dimensionally. So, again, they just added a little bit of acreage. So this was, yeah. And now they comply. All right. Thank you. And there's, see, Article 9, by the way, that provision is in the infill and redevelopment that allows that additional FAR. And that's to encourage this sort of development. But just a little glitch in the process. All right. They found a very nice way to deal with it. There's a little bit of, I mean, nice little chunk open space right there. Perfect. Thank you. So I think we were told this is a subdivision committee, but since this is affordable housing, how many new units are we adding here? They have a total of 72 units, 132 bedrooms, and that's the original numbers. Those have not changed. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. We're good to go. Applicant? I am Clay Johnson with Prime Engineering. I'm here for the applicant. We just want to concur with what the planning staff presented, and thank you all for working with us to find a good solution. And we have nothing else to add, but we can answer any questions you may have. Okay. Any questions? Not seeing any. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Nickel? All right, I'm going to provide a motion, recommend a motion to approve PLNNMJDP 22-85 with the findings provided. Okay, with the, thank you, sir. No findings, just the... No waiver, sorry. 11 recommendations. 11 recommendations. 11 recommendations. All right. Thank you and Robin at the same place before y'all got here. Okay, do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Johan. Keep up the good work. And that should put us on page 5. PLN MJDP 23-22 Glen Creek Dove Creek. We do have revised staff recommendations for this as well. Thank you. Okay. This property is Armstrong Mill. It comes in off of Appian Way. And then we have Appian Crossing coming through here. They have been developing this rear portion of the property. We've had this plan with, in the Division of Planning for, started about 20 years ago. So they started it back in here. And since then, there's been some additional townhomes built. But since they're coming in to finish out the rest of it, let's see here, you can see they're coming in to finish and complete it with some additional townhomes. So with that, they've been working hard to make sure they get through and pick up our new ordinance regulations with 16, 18, and 20. So you can see they have an open space area here. And then they've also are creating another access point to get out of here because at this time there's only one access point in. So with the addition of the additional units, they will have another access point that will come down to Jones Trail, which will bring them back out here at Appian Crossing Way. So with that, you can see that they have revised conditions. We just have the first 12 are just our typical sign-offs. We just want to verify the number of dwelling units and the site statistics. number 14 at the subdivision committee we had discussed, but what it was is resolve. It is now resolve facilities for the dwelling units, pedestrian facilities. They have included a sidewalk in front of all the units so everybody has access to get to the park, and they also have access to get out to Jones Trail should they want to walk down Jones Trail. So that was the question with pedestrian facilities, and they have come in and they have made that revision so that everybody will have a sidewalk to get somewhere if there's any other comments or questions cheryl how many how many units are going to be added here there's 60 i think it's 68 no 40 48 right 48 units it's 68 on the other side i'm sorry Those units are what we're seeing in the dark. Yes. The new units are these and here. These all have been built over the last 20 years. It also included a portion of townhomes over in this area, which is off of Takes Creek Road off of Jones Trail, or Jonestown Trail in Lady Di, because it, years and years and years ago, it was, the idea was, this was to be connected over to this area, but because they have a flood plain and a large green open space area, that was never done. And so they separated the two. But these have been built for a while, and then all this has been built and now they're coming in to complete the property and finish it with some additional townhomes. Okay. Any additional questions? Not seeing any. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. I'm Billy Mach with Element Design and we're just here to request approval I think Cheryl's covered all the things that we've been working through with them okay thank you are there any questions for the applicant at this moment not seeing any thank you all right thank you all you're welcome there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application okay we'll bring it back to the Commission floor is open for a motion Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2322 Glen Creek with the recommended 14 conditions. Okay. Thank you. Second by Mr. Bell. Please vote. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now she'll put us on page 8. Under commission items, we've got a PFR 2023-3 Hope Center. All right. Good afternoon. This is a public facility review for an addition and renovation of the existing Hope Center. facility located at 360 West Loudoun Avenue. The site is located here, sort of generally between Newtown Pike here and North Broadway shown off screen over here directly adjacent to the RJ Corman rail. We've got the BCTC campus here. Across the street is the north side YMCA and then some additional Hope Center properties located to the east and residential to the south. Staff has evaluated this application within the second tier urban place type and the medium density non-residential mixed use development type of the comprehensive plan based on this location. The existing structure was constructed in the early 90s by the LFUCG to be operated by the Hope Center to coordinate and provide services for the homeless. The existing structure contains space for 200 clients who sleep at the emergency shelter each night and they also provide meals to those staying at the shelter and they operate 24 hours a day. So earlier this year the Hope Center received ARPA funding to construct an additional supportive transitional shelter for men with mental illness and substance abuse issues as well as for veterans who are homeless. So they are coming to us with a proposal for a new addition. So you see the existing structure here and then the addition proposed here. So the existing structure, and we'll zoom in a little bit to see a little closer. The existing structure is 18,656 square feet with an area of 1,959 square feet to be renovated. And then they're proposing an additional 18,674 square feet, a two-story addition. Currently they have 24 parking spaces and sort of a circular driveway. They are proposing to have 44 parking spaces in two parking areas, so one over here and then one over here. So staff does find that this project is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The proposal is in agreement with a number of the place builder criteria for that medium density non-residential place type or development type within the second tier urban place type. The construction will be an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. The use is a neighborhood serving use that has a specific need, and it allows for the continued use of a viable existing structure. However, there are several place builder criteria that staff found this plan does not address, and staff does recommend that the Hope Center consider modifying the proposal to respond to the following criteria. So those are ADS5-3, which says that building orientation should maximize connections with the surrounding area and create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. The proposed layout does not include pedestrian connections between the buildings and the rights-of-way, including West Loudoun and the Legacy Trail. So I'll go back to the site plan real quick. They do have pedestrian walkways around the building and things like that, but they don't connect all the way up to the trail. So staff is recommending that they comply with the regulations in Article 16 that require internal pedestrian walkways in both parking areas to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the building entrance does not face the public right-of-way. You can see that the entrance doors are located along this facade here. So staff is recommending a modification to the structure to include some sort of pedestrian scale feature in this vicinity here. That could include a canopy and transparent fenestration and also a pedestrian entrance that is facing the right of way and lining up with the legacy trail access that goes right here. The other criteria from Place Builder that is not being met here is ADS 7-1, and that says that parking should be oriented to the interior or rear of the property for non-residential or multifamily developments, and also ADS 7-2, which says any non-residential parking lot not buffered by a building should be screened from the streetscape view. So they obviously don't have a lot of room to put the parking behind the structure, but they do have enough space to meet the landscaping requirements of Article 18 for vehicular use areas. So staff is recommending that they do utilize Article 18. There is a note on the plan that says that they plan to be in accordance with Article 18, but some of the things that they're showing on the plan are not consistent with the current regulations. So we just want to make sure that they are in agreement with that. So with that, I'll open up to any questions that you have. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Do we have an applicant? Mr. Hope Center, representative, is here? Okay. Hello, I'm Chris Smith with Palmer Engineering. I'm representing the Hope Center, and I'm an applicant on the project. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I also have the architect, Celia Moore, with the Integrity Architecture here to answer any questions as well. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? I have a question about the parking, the number of parking spaces. How did you come up with that number? I mean, is there a need for that many parking spaces? Well, we worked with the architect on what parking needs there probably were for the expansion. That's sort of how we came up with the parking numbers based on the additional staff and space that the expansion is going to provide. So it's mainly staff? I believe so, yes. That number is, there's not very many residents that drive, so it's mainly for staff. It just seems like a lot of parking spaces to me, but you know the numbers better than I do. And we're going to address, like with Article 18, our landscape ordinance, we're going to address that, and it may shave some parking spaces down because of providing ILA. So we'll be looking at that in our next stage of development of the full design. So that number will probably come down. Okay. All right. Let's see. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Minkler. Go ahead, Mr. Mikler. Well, would you mind speaking to the observations about the building orientation and the entrance being parking lot oriented instead of street oriented? Can I bring up my architect to discuss that? Yes, you may. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Can we bring a visual background to you? Hi, I'm Celia Moore with Integrity Architecture. So the reason the building had to be oriented this way is due to the triangular shape of the site, and that was really the only way that we could get windows into all of the and the Hope Center wanted three distinct entrances one for if you're coming in at a crisis you have a special way of intaking into the building as well as a staff entrance and then a special entrance for the veterans units so that gave us the opportunity to kind of create just way finding for three different areas instead of the on the end which it just did get very tight especially with the setback there at the front. Thank you for the explanation. Just a curiosity, so the veterans units are separated physically or just located in an area together away from the other residents? The veterans units are all on the second floor except for the one that is ADA compliant, which is on the first floor. And then the other back half, essentially, of the first level is all the emergency shelter units. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I don't see any further questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Any public comments? No? Okay. And then the floor is open. We just need a motion to accept the report. Yes. Ms. Worth? Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the report of PFR 2023-3 from the Hope Center Facilities Review of the Expansion. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Ms. Meyer. Please vote. I'm missing one person. Who didn't vote? Everybody click. And nine. We got nine. I'm only showing eight. All right. That was me. You vote? Ooh, man. I guess I'm been, ooh, can't say nothing to you now, Robin. All right. I know. Okay, so Tracy, Ms. Wade. that you have at it. Yes, Chairman Forrester, our next item for the Commission to consider is initiation of two text amendments on page 9. The first is a request from the Division of Engineering to update our land subdivision regulations for sureties, specifically kind of combining and condensing the way it's worded now. It talks about taking down the surety in steps, like it lists four or five different steps, And the Division of Engineering doesn't actually utilize that many steps in doing it, or if they do, it's in a little bit different process. So they've asked us to, or the Commission, to consider updating the regulations to match the process that they're using today. So then we'll bring that back. Instead of a ZOTO coming to the Zoning Committee, it would come to the Subdivision Committee to consider for a Subdivision Regulation Amendment. Okay. Any questions? Any questions? All right. I'm not saying anything. Okay. So we just need the commission to initiate that request. Yes, Mr. Davis? Mr. Chairman, I move that we initiate an amendment to Article 4-8 of the land subdivision regulations to update the regulations related to public improvements and surities. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. I think Mr. Nickel seconded your motion. Yep. All right. So I am voting now. We got that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And then our next item is an update that has come via the Urban County Council to come back and review our accessory dwelling unit text. They've asked that the Planning Commission initiate a text amendment to look at and evaluate the existing ordinance and if it's working and to recommend some changes back to them. So the staff will be presenting more detailed text, I believe, next week at work session. And then, but at this point we just ask that you initiate it so that the process can get started in terms of being able to send mailings for both of these amendments at the same time okay just a clarification so what we're being asked to do is initiate a process that will involve looking at how well it's working before we jump to figuring out changes well the that's what I'm hoping you're telling me that the urban County Council's general government and planning committee has already reviewed the information about how it's working and they have asked the Planning Commission to update the ordinance. So will we get a chance to examine that information? Yes. Okay. Are you okay with making that initiation? Yeah, I mean, just a, this is two years old, and we've had some, a little bit of information about how many ADUs have been, I guess, developed or requested. Right. And I'm wanting to know if we're going to initiate changes. Is that based on how much information do we have about how well it's working and why it's not working as well as we need it to be before we, I'm coming from a don't jump to solutions until you've clearly defined that there's a problem and you know the root causes. And whether we're going to be looking at they're not happening because interest rates are too high or they're not happening because of something in the nature of the ordinance is a problem. That's what I want to make sure we're doing. I'm sure there's a factor associated with the financing and supply. Supply chain issues. Issues in terms of the price of materials these days. So I'm sure that's part of the issue in terms of people moving forward with ADUs. But we've found, and again, we presented that to the council committee, that a majority of the people who come in and talk to us, the Division of Planning is the first step, identify other issues that are keeping them from moving forward. More like procedural issues and things that an ordinance could change? Yes. Okay. And I think we'll talk about that next week at the work session. Okay. Thank you. You would like to make that initiation? Ms. Work? To get the process started? I will, to start the process to ensure that we are seeing all that information before we do anything with it. Sure. I move that we initiate the zoning ordinance text amendment recommended by the council related to the accessory dwelling units. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Pohl. please vote. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you. So the election of officers, we can't vote for ourselves, can we? Can we? I don't think we've got enough to do that, though. Yes, we do. We do? We have nine members of 11 currently. Yeah. Okay. Typically, if the commission has taken the whole slate of officers at the same time, everyone does vote. If we take them individually, oftentimes the person being elected recuses. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, next up, the election of officers. The current officers, chairs Larry Forster, Vice Chair Anthony DeMovulin, Secretary Janice Meyer, Parliamentarian Zach Davis. The nominating committee recommends Chair Larry Forster, Vice Chair Zach Davis, Secretary Janice Meyer, and Parliamentarian Judy Wirth. So the floor is open for a motion to accept the nominating committee's recommendation. Mr. Pol? So moved. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes unanimously. Congratulations. So this was Zach. Next, the delegation of secretary duties. The commission passed procedures for carrying out the secretary duties except for signing minutes has been to delegate that authority to the director of the Division of Planning and his staff. So I'm requesting that the commission consider taking action at this time. So moved. Second. We got a motion. I got your back. Thank you. Please vote. Okay. It was in there. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Is that, I think that's it. Yes. Ms. Wade? Ms. Wade? Just a reminder that we are conducting all of our meetings right now in the third floor conference room because of the renovations happening in the council chamber. So next week we'll be back here. Obviously this is our normal spot for work session, but then throughout the first week and second week of August, I think we'll still be in this location. Can I make a request if we have another hearing? Can we get the development plan for like the tabs? Like we usually do all the notifications about the tabs? Yes, that's for a zoning hearing. We do have more of the additional information related to that, but yes. Maybe if you want to save on it, I think maybe not everything that the plants are simply are really hard to find. To see on the screen? Okay. Yeah. And what's the story on the sinkhole? It's not a sinkhole. Right, Doug Burton? It's a stormwater pipe collapse, and then that caused the asphalt to collapse on top of it. But they're fixing it. They're going to fix it. We don't really have a sinkhole under the building, so don't worry. You all are fine. It's too late now. We're in here. Yeah, we're in here. I work here every day. I'm not worried about it. Does that help? Good, good. Okay. That's it. Yes, please. I don't like my back face. I don't like people walking in. Everybody don't like us. I'd rather be looking at who's coming in. Okay. that we can talk after yes okay okay so this meeting is adjourned i mean i don't need i don't know that we need