# Planning Commission (Zoning Items) - July 27, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 27, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5875 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5875?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-07-27 - **Last revised**: July 27, 2023 - **Length**: 15,504 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 met on July 27, 2023, at 1:30 PM at the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor, 101 East Vine Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Forrester presiding. The Commission addressed five agenda items during the meeting, including approval of minutes, three zoning map amendments, and an amendment to Article 17 regarding electronic message display signage. The Commission took eight motions and votes and heard three public comments during the session. Of the matters brought before the Commission, two zoning map amendments were approved: the Sayre College Zoning Map Amendment and the Flora Investments, LLC Zoning Map Amendment. Two items were postponed: the Anderson Communities, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment and the Amendment to Article 17 for Electronic Message Display Signage. The Approval of Minutes was handled as an informational item. ## Attendance **Present:** Larry Forester, Ivy Barksdale, Headley Bell, Janice Meyer, Zach Davis, Bruce Nicol, Graham Pohl, William Wilson, Mike Owens, and Judy Worth. **Absent:** Robin Michler. **Late arrivals:** None. ## Votes and Decisions **PLN-MAR-23-00005: Anderson Communities, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment** [0:24:22] Motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Wilson. The board voted unanimously (10-0) to postpone this item until August 10, 2023. All ten members voted in favor: Larry Forester, Ivy Barksdale, Headley Bell, Janice Meyer, Zach Davis, Bruce Nicol, Graham Pohl, William Wilson, Mike Owens, and Judy Worth. **PLN-ZOTA-23-00002: Amendment to Article 17 for Electronic Message Display Signage** [0:31:10] Motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Ms. Worth. The board voted unanimously (10-0) to postpone this item until August 24, 2023. All ten members voted in favor. **PLN-MAR-23-00008: Sayre College Zoning Map Amendment** [0:48:16] Motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Ms. Barksdale. The board voted unanimously (10-0) to approve the zoning map amendment. All ten members voted in favor. **PLN-MAR-23-00008: Sayre College Conditional Use Permit** [0:49:19] Motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Ms. Barksdale. The board voted unanimously (10-0) to approve the conditional use permit with seven conditions. All ten members voted in favor. **PLN-MJDP-23-00038: Sayre Athletic Complex Development Plan** [0:49:50] Motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Ms. Barksdale. The board voted unanimously (10-0) to approve the development plan with conditions #18, 19, and 20 deleted. All ten members voted in favor. **PLN-MAR-21-00018: Flora Investments, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** [1:46:48] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Worth. The board voted unanimously (10-0) to approve the zoning map amendment. All ten members voted in favor. **PLN-MJDP-21-00060: Hamburg Place Farm Development Plan** [1:47:52] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Bell. The board voted unanimously (10-0) to approve the development plan with conditions to resolve parking issues and traffic concerns at the time of final development plan. All ten members voted in favor. **Flora Investments, LLC Conditional Use Permit** [1:48:53] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Bell. The board voted unanimously (10-0) to approve the conditional use permit with conditions as identified by staff. All ten members voted in favor. ## Public Comment Three members of the public provided comments during the meeting. **Bruce Simpson** [timestamp: 0:01:09] spoke on behalf of the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association regarding a postponement request for Anderson Communities, Inc. Simpson requested that the item be postponed to allow additional time for community review of the staff report, emphasizing the importance of community engagement in the process. **Elizabeth Weiner** [timestamp: 1:15:36] addressed concerns related to the proposed Flora Investments development. She expressed concerns about traffic patterns and connectivity between the proposed development and the existing Hamburg Place Mall, with particular emphasis on safety issues associated with these connections. **Christina Keith** [timestamp: 1:18:23] spoke on behalf of Longship Logistics regarding the Flora Investments development. Keith raised two primary concerns: the potential change in character of the office park resulting from the proposed restaurant use, and the absence of a reciprocal parking agreement between the parties. ## Contested Items Two items generated significant discussion and disagreement during this meeting. **Anderson Communities, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment** The request for postponement of this zoning map amendment became contentious during the meeting. The primary disagreement centered on community engagement and the timing of the staff report. Participants raised concerns about due process and whether statutory requirements had been properly followed. The contentious nature of the discussion reflected broader questions about how adequate notice and opportunity for public input should be provided before zoning decisions are made. **Flora Investments, LLC Development** The proposed development by Flora Investments, LLC generated opposition from neighboring property owners. The concerns raised focused on three main issues: traffic patterns that would result from the development, connectivity of the proposed site, and the impact on the character of the office park. The opposition centered on the proposed restaurant use and how it would change the nature of the existing office park environment. Neighboring property owners expressed concerns about the practical effects the development would have on their properties and the surrounding area. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:00:33] No minutes from the June 22, 2023 meeting were presented for approval during this agenda item. The meeting proceeded as informational only, with no new minutes available to review or vote on at this time. ## Anderson Communities, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MAR-23-00005 The commission discussed a postponement request for the Anderson Communities zoning map amendment [timestamp: 00:01:09]. The primary focus of the discussion centered on concerns regarding community engagement and the timing of the staff report. **Key Speakers:** - Bruce Simpson - Tracy Jones - Dick Murphy **Discussion Summary:** The commission considered a request to postpone action on this zoning map amendment. The postponement was motivated by concerns about the adequacy of community engagement efforts and questions about the staff report's timing relative to the public review process. **Outcome:** The commission voted to postpone the Anderson Communities, Inc. zoning map amendment, deferring further consideration of this item to a future meeting. ## Amendment to Article 17 for Electronic Message Display Signage **Identifier:** PLN-ZOTA-23-00002 The commission discussed an amendment to Article 17 regarding electronic message display signage [timestamp: 00:30:08]. Traci Wade was the key speaker on this agenda item. The commission determined that further review and consideration of the proposed amendment was necessary. Rather than proceeding with a decision at this meeting, the commission voted to postpone the amendment to allow additional time for evaluation. **Outcome:** The amendment was postponed. ## Sayre College Zoning Map Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MAR-23-00008 The commission reviewed a zoning map amendment for Sayre College to expand the Sayre Athletic Complex, including consideration of a conditional use permit for the expansion [timestamp: 0:32:23]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Daniel Crum, Tom Martin, and Nick Nicholson. **Outcome** The commission approved the zoning map amendment and the associated conditional use permit for the athletic complex expansion. ## Flora Investments, LLC Zoning Map Amendment **Case Number:** PLN-MAR-21-00018 The commission discussed and approved a zoning map amendment for Flora Investments, LLC [timestamp: 1:02:29]. The amendment would allow for the construction of a commercial structure and a conditional use permit for a parking lot. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Daniel Crum, Tom Martin, and Matt Carter. **Outcome** The zoning map amendment was approved. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-23-00005** — postponed (10-0): Postpone Anderson Communities, Inc. zoning map amendment - **PLN-ZOTA-23-00002** — postponed (10-0): Postpone amendment to Article 17 for additional electronic message display signage - **PLN-MAR-23-00008** — passed (10-0): Approve Sayre College zoning map amendment - **PLN-MAR-23-00008** — passed (10-0): Approve conditional use permit for Sayre College - **PLN-MJDP-23-00038** — passed (10-0): Approve Sayre Athletic Complex development plan - **PLN-MAR-21-00018** — passed (10-0): Approve Flora Investments, LLC zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-21-00060** — passed (10-0): Approve Hamburg Place Farm development plan - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve conditional use permit for Flora Investments, LLC --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is July 27th, 2023. It's now 1.30. And welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission Subdivision and Zoning meeting. First up on the agenda for the commissioners, I'm needing the approval for the June 22nd, 2023 minutes. So the floor is open for a motion. Thank you sir. We're going to skip that. Postponements and withdrawals. I think we're going to. Mr. Simpson? I'm sorry, it's a little different now, so we're going to point you at the microphone in the corner. Is that any better? Get closer to the microphone. I'll try it one more time. My name is Bruce Simpson and I am an attorney and I represent along with Wes Harnett who is standing over there in a much better looking suit than I'm wearing. representing Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association and some residents in Ellerslie. There's a lot of people that I don't represent that are here today. They don't have council. And for them, this is the first time, for many of the people here, in fact, Old Richmond Road, there's some veterans. But for Ellerslie and the other people that I don't represent, this is the first zone change they've ever had to respond to. So, as you know, this case has been on your all's docket since May, and we appeared before you in May during the subcommittee meeting on the subdivision and the subcommittee meeting on zoning, and at that time the staff was recommending a postponement, and you all recommended postponement subcommittees, and it came headed toward the commission in May, May 22nd, and the applicant postponed. We didn't object. The recommendation for postponement continued. Applicant was going to file some documents after the May subcommittee meetings. Those weren't filed. They weren't filed in June. Applicant asked for a postponement again. We didn't object. Postponement was granted. The recommendation of the staff and your outstanding recommendation of postponement has continued to be in effect for almost 12 consecutive weeks, up until yesterday at 420 when I received a radical change in the staff's recommendation from postponement to approval. And so upon receiving that, I was in fact, had already called Mr. Murphy, the attorney for the applicant. I'd called Mr. Duncan, director of the planning staff, and I said, you know, we haven't got the staff report. It's less than a day before the 1.30 meeting. The staff report is critically important because statistically, as you all well know, you all recommend approval of the staff recommendation almost 95% of the time. So it is the most important evidence that's going to be coming into this case, more important than what Mr. Murphy says and more important than what I have to say in terms of its statistical significance on Ural's historic decision-making. So I hadn't had a chance to, when I sent a written request into Tracy Jones and I copied Mr. Murphy and also Mr. Duncan, saying that I'm going to ask for a postponement because really, as a courtesy to people that I don't represent, they've not had the opportunity and will not have had the opportunity to review the staff recommendation. This is all new to them, to evaluate the staff recommendation, to see if it's in error, to give them the opportunity, a reasonable opportunity, to review it, evaluate it, and be able to respond. And I suggested and recommended that we come to an agreement on a postponement simply to avoid all these folks coming down here unnecessarily and perhaps getting a postponement, which we hope we will, based on your all's consideration of our request for the postponement. And that is simply because you all have made community engagement a critical part of the planning and zoning process. You require the applicant to meet with people in advance of these meetings. Obviously, by the people who have shown up, and we still have people coming in, there's a lot of interest here on behalf of the neighborhood. And they have every right, under the law, to have a reasonable notice of the evidence that's going to be coming in before this body. In fact, you all need a reasonable opportunity to review the evidence before you all make a decision on it, not in the rush of getting something at 4.40 in the afternoon the day before a 1.30 hearing. That's not reasonable under any interpretation of the law. And in particular, in these cases where in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, you all made a point of emphasis for community engagement so that the public would have credibility in the process and they would have the opportunity to be heard and the opportunity to be informed about what was going to be said and to understand what was going to be said prior to it being said. And because the staff reports come in so late, they're being denied that opportunity today. Not granting this postponement is not being consistent with the strong emphasis of engaging the community so that even though they may not like your decision, and I hope they will like your decision, but even if they don't, they should at least feel like we've been respected. And the developer has requested two postponements, which they've gotten. We're asking for one postponement of 30 days, based on the reasons that I just mentioned, the opportunity to evaluate the report. And the way I work with neighborhoods is this. We parcel up to save money. Each person does an assignment so that I don't have to do everything. And I'll help them and guide them, but they get involved in these cases, and they do homework, and they come prepared. And Old Richmond Road, in particular, has a history of that kind of participation. And they're being denied the opportunity to present their case because they haven't had the time to get into the staff report, analyze it in less than a day before the hearing today. So based upon those due process considerations, in my judgment as a matter of law, In fairness, in light of the developers getting two postponements, and Mr. Murphy knew that I was going to be making this request yesterday because I asked him if his client would agree, and obviously that's not the case. we simply believe as a matter of fairness and equity to the public to the integrity of your decision making process whatever that decision may be give us the opportunity to have our folks go over the staff's report evaluate it and come back next month fully prepared to make their case and I appreciate your attention to my request thank you thank you Mr. Simpson Mr. Nichols I'm wondering if Tracy Jones can respond to that request, because we were lucky enough to hear about the process of getting staff recommendations to everyone a couple of weeks ago, and I was wondering if you could help explain or talk about, as a matter of law, the request from Mr. Simpson. Do you want me to come up there? I kind of don't like talking to you from behind your head. Well, first let me say the biggest thing that's going on here is we're bound by the statute. And the statute says that unless the applicant agrees to a postponement, this body must act on their application in 90 days. You've exceeded the 90 days already. and that happened based on the last postponement to which they agreed. So I don't believe that you all have the purview to extend past the 90 days without the applicant's agreement. First off. Second off, the due process, as I understand it, is this hearing. You have to provide due process in the course of these hearings. A staff report is to your benefit. It's given to you by the staff. There's nothing in the statute that requires a staff report. So you could come to this meeting with no staff report and still have a hearing based on what you hear in the course of this hearing. And our job in the course of this hearing is to make sure that you hear everybody, everybody gets their opportunity to be heard, you get to ask your questions your questions and get the answers that you need. So, you know, I will say this. This isn't necessarily a legal answer, but it is, to my point of view, down the road possibly, is this information is available and has been available in Acellus since April. The committee meetings, well, anyway. No backgrounds. So once an applicant makes their application and it's loaded into our system and you all had committee hearings on it, the information of what is being asked for and requested that you all have to make a decision on is there. And that's why some jurisdictions don't ever provide a staff report. So, you know, I'm not sure statutorily we can do this depending on what the applicant's position is in terms of another postponement past the 90 days. However, I think that we can accomplish due process in the course of this hearing when you all follow the rules you normally follow in your hearings. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, do you... Thank you, of course. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Anderson Communities. and we are very respectfully not wanting to postpone this case. I'll give you a little background here. We received the staff report the same time everybody else did on that. In the background, we filed April 3rd, went through the subcommittees in May. As you all know, after the subcommittees meet, staff sends out a letter saying we can postpone. or if we don't, we'll have to send out letters. And at that point, we elected to postpone. So the letters didn't go out. I don't think it was even on the agenda for the May meeting. It was taken off the agenda because it wasn't going to be heard. Everybody knew about that. We got back on for June, and at that point, Mr. Simpson did contact me the week before asking if we were going to go forward or not. And I got with Dennis, and we agreed to postpone because we were still going through the design review process with Ms. Friedman, Mr. Sewey, and Mr. Martin here. And based on that, we were totally revising our plan on that. So we agreed in advance to postpone. We had notice of it. They had notice of it several days in advance. I was able to go work on something else, and Bruce was able to go on vacation because we agreed to do that in advance. We have indicated every intent to proceed with this this month. We have worked very hard to give you a revised plan. We have representatives here from Wawa to talk to you about their part in this development, which is one of the lots on this property as well. The thing to me is that the staff does not raise any new issues in its recommendation to you. What it does is when they made their first recommendation of postponement, they listed, I think, eight place builder criteria that they wanted us to address some more on our plan. So we had the design review and came up with the plan, and we addressed those eight. We filed a new plan and addressed those eight, and I filed a new statement of justification saying how we addressed those eight. And yesterday the report came out. The staff had reviewed that and is giving you their opinion on whether we have properly addressed those eight issues and others and have made a recommendation of approval. Now, there is going to be no difference. nobody's position has changed as a result of staff recommendation of approval or disapproval. Regardless of the way the staff had recommended, whether if they recommended disapproval of our zone change, I'd be up here today asking you for approval, and Mr. Simpson would be asking you for disapproval on it. The issues are all in front of us and have been voiced by neighbors on it. There has not been a lot of neighborhood engagement because it's been made clear to us, first of all, the old Richmond Road Association didn't want to meet with us after they engaged Mr. Simpson. There was some discussion back and forth, but the parties are just so far apart, there's no way that there's going to be a compromise on it, unfortunately. So I agree that there's no due process violation. I do not have a right to know what Mr. Simpson is going to present to you in advance. The objectors get to surprise you in this process. Everything I've got has been filed in advance. So it's there on a cell on the website for everybody to see. But I don't get to know what the objectors are going to say at this hearing. I wish I had a due process right to do that, and I think that would be very helpful in the process. by the way, we could narrow the issues down, but we don't. I don't have a due process right to that. Nobody has a due process right to get a recommendation from the staff, either way or at a particular time. And I think, as Ms. Jones mentioned, practicing before other planning commissions in this area, a lot of the staffs don't make a recommendation, or they do a report given some of the facts in writing, and then at the hearing they say, yeah, we think that's okay. They'll give you an oral recommendation at the hearing, which is right at contemporaneous with the date we're having the hearing. So as I said, we've worked on this very hard. We think all the issues have been apparent for a long time on this. We think everybody knows what the issues are. We're pleased, obviously, with the recommendation of approval, but we would be going forward with this exact same presentation if the staff had recommended disapproval of us. So we prefer to proceed today. Great. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Hold on one second, Mr. Simpson. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Murphy, if you would, I've got a question. First, it's, I could say, fun to be back, but it looks like we're jumping right into the fire all of a sudden. Sure. Being my first time back in three years, I guess, and having sat on the subdivision committee for all the years that I was here, I kind of know that area pretty well. And in looking at what's transpired with this plan, one, I saw this plan a week ago for the first time. And, yes, the staff was recommending postponement at that time because they raised some concerns or the subdivision committee raised some concerns. and we, they, and we got this revised plan yesterday at 420 as Mr. Simpson said. And being a good old Kentucky boy, it takes me a little while to digest stuff. It seems like that you all have made significant changes, and good or bad, I'm not getting into that at the present time. You have made a lot of changes. I think it would be appropriate if we could mediate this thing somehow to have a postponement. Mr. Simpson said a month. I don't know if you ought to be willing to go to two weeks or not, but just to give everyone a chance to digest this is my thoughts. So thank you, sir. Appreciate that. I would note our plan was filed earlier. It's the staff report you didn't get till yesterday our plans been Oh, I know that yes, sir And yeah, I'm not pointing any fingers to particularly to you all Okay, so this is kind of based on the y'all want to comment any comments Appreciate the opportunity. Just a couple of responses. One with respect to Tracy's comment about the statutory provision and any reported time constraint on the developer. The statute was not enacted to allow the developer to manipulate the statute to get two continuances and then eliminate anybody else from getting one. Every time he asks for a continuance, that statute gets extended. He's extended it twice, so the time limit is not run. The legislature wouldn't have adopted a statutory provision that allows one side to manipulate it and keep the public from asking for a continuance. So I don't believe that statute applies under any sense of equity or reasonable interpretation of the law. Secondly, with respect to community engagement, we asked to meet with Dennis. I'm half the whole neighborhood and we set up a meeting, but he was out of town. I said, ask Dick, can we have another meeting? His response was Dennis didn't want to meet with everybody. He would meet with two or three of us. And we talked yesterday or the day before. He said, is that going to do any good if we meet with two or three? And I said, well, probably not. You know, there's a lot of people I don't represent. We invite everybody, but I don't represent all these people. I don't know what they're going to say. They may be here in support of it. I don't know. But for a lot of people, this is the first time. This is brand new. And I don't believe the statute can be manipulated by a developer and create the perception that this is a developer-driven, developer-deferenced process, which if you don't grant this extension, which will take two weeks, will be ready in two weeks, which I think is reasonable, that's the appearance that these people will get, unfortunately. And I just don't think that's necessary, and I don't think you want to do that. I know you all are fair. I know that. In two-week extension, to have everybody digest this late-filed plan is a reasonable request. It's also a legal request. I mean, under the law, as a matter of law, with all due respect, other counsel here, our due process rights are being violated if we don't get this extension to be able to digest what the staff is recommending because they're the most influential evidence in this case. I hope you will get us a two-week extension. Thank you. Mr. Nichols. I just don't like the characterization that if we don't vote in the way that you would like, that we're not being fair. I think we've heard from Ms. Jones that what we're doing is appropriate, so I'm interested to vote if that's what we need to do. But the mischaracterization that we would not be fair is incorrect when we have the attorney right here saying that we are following process. But, Mr. Murphy, are you in agreement or not for a two-week postponement? Because based on Ms. Jones, a legal counsel has said we don't have purview to postpone this any further because we're at our limit of 90 days. Is that correct, Ms. Jones? That's correct. And just for the record, I'm looking at our ordinance right now, and it says that you have to decide within 90 days the date of filing, unless the time is extended by the request of or the agreement of the applicant. So that's where I'm coming from when I tell you that. So just so you know. So, Mr. Murphy, are you asking for an extension or no? We understand the concerns here and hope you understand we have followed every procedure and the staff has as well. And like I said, there's no guarantee that it's when the staff can get their review through, but as I said, there were no new issues. That being said, if you all want to vote to postpone it, we will agree to extend. We would do that for two weeks if you want to do that, but that's up to you. But if you vote to postpone it, we will extend our time. We can't vote to postpone it. That's what's on the table. That's not an option. It's you got to make the option that if you want to postpone it for two weeks and not as the applicant or 30 days, we cannot make that vote. or to be heard today. We will agree to postpone for two weeks. We hope that this results in some meaningful dialogue other than just being totally opposed to anything we want to do on this property. But we will agree to extend for two weeks. Okay. Thank you. So go ahead. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Anderson, thank you. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Thank you. So I'll bring it back to the commission. we have a two-week postponement request for PLN MAR 23-5 Anderson Communities. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, since I started this, I'll move for a two-week postponement of Anderson Communities Plan MAR 23-5 Anderson Communities Incorporated along with the Associated Development Plan. I believe there's a waiver that came along as well. Yes. And, Mr. Chairman, I would second that motion. Okay. Just one second. Ms. Worth had a year. Okay. Now, that meeting is August 10th, correct? So that's the August 10th meeting. So we have a motion and a second. Are we still voting electronically, or are we? And, yes, is there any further discussion to this motion? I'm seeing none. Let's vote here electronically. I'm working on it. Where's my technology guy? Are we going to raise an old school? If you vote in favor for the two-week postponement, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. That may clear the room out. I mean, yeah. We're going to let them clear out first before we get back. Okay? Thank you. I got no head to do it. So, I'm going to keep talking about it. Oh, he did. I should get to you. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I still need it. I think that if I young, it is a little break. It's my nation. I think that's what I'm doing. I didn't mean to put that in there. And that was my last slide. I just left it on the screen. Yeah. I thought it was better than that. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. I'm going to go. Thank you. All right, we're going to get back going here. We're still on postponements or withdrawals. Any other postponements? Ms. Wade. Thank you, Chairman Forrester. An item on page 7 of your agenda, PLN ZODA 23-2, an amendment to Article 17 for additional electronic message display signage, including video in the Lexington Center Business B2B zone. The applicant was agreeable to postponing this item to the August public hearing, and they were at the zoning committee and indicated that as well. So we would ask that you postpone this to the August 24th Planning Commission public hearing. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that has any questions or concern about this particular postponement? Okay, not seeing any. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement to August 24th for PLNZO 23-2. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Worth. Second the motion. Ms. Worth's microphone is not working. I think her battery is dead. So we're going to vote again. Old-fashioned, hands raised. So if you're in favor of this motion, please raise your hand. Okay, the ayes have it unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. From the commission standpoint, I would like to get back to the agenda, but I would like to start on page 5. I want to take up Sayre College Zoning Map Amendment, PLN MER 23-8. To my understanding, that can be abbreviated. so if we don't have any objections to that from the commissioners I'll call staff up okay staff chairman Forrester we would just ask if there's anyone in the audience today that's here to I guess object to the Sayre College application I just wanted to make sure I could take it in an abbreviated fashion thank you all right good afternoon everyone Daniel Crum planning staff the first item on our agenda here is a request by Sayre College this is PLN MAR 2308 and this is request to rezone 50.1 net acres of the property at 300 Cambrai Drive from an agricultural rural AR zone to an agricultural buffer AB zone. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to expand the existing Sayre Athletic Campus at this location. In order to accomplish this, they are also seeking a conditional use to allow for this expansion. On this screen, you'll note that there isn't any indication of a place type or development type because this is in the rural service area and is subject to the rural land management plan. So we'll be getting into that a little bit later on the presentation instead of our standard discussion of place type and development type. So just orient yourself towards the property here. The subject property is shown in the center of your screen. Let's see if you can reach all the way over here. The large parcel in white, it is located on Cambric Drive, which is a series of agriculturally zoned lots, 10 acre lots generally with residential and agricultural uses. In the immediate vicinity, we have the interstate as well as Athens-Boonsboro Road. So Canebrake Drive circulates up to the north. The subject property is also adjacent to the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. So it's this cluster of urbanized uses located to the south. Zooming in a little bit closer, you get an idea of the zoning of the surrounding parcels. So like the subject property, Many of the surrounding parcels are also zoned AR, with the lone exception being industrial zoning present to the south there within the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. So just to note that this subject property is located within the rural areas, subject to the Rural Land Management Plan, which is a map-based plan, and specifically calls out the property's location here as areas designated for buffer land uses. So the intent of the buffer land use area within the Rural Land Management Plan were areas to sort of step down the intensity of zoning where you had more industrialized or more urbanized uses. The buffer areas were to act as a step down in intensity and create a buffer between these rural agricultural and residential uses. So the subject property is located in an area that is recommended by the Rural Land Management Plan for agricultural buffering zoning specifically. So here we have a view of the subject property. The subject property is occupied by the Sayer Athletic Campus. This is a use that was established in the early 2000s, around 2005 and 2006, and received several conditional use permits in order to operate outdoor athletic facilities at this location. Here we have sort of a mix of structures and different various field uses between baseball fields, tennis courts, football fields, soccer and lacrosse fields, just a mixing of uses supplemented by a parking area here, as well as several structures on the property, including the field house. The applicant is seeking this rezoning today because they hit the threshold or the cap that the agricultural rural zoning would allow for conditional uses. And so they are seeking the AB zone, which allows for a kind of higher utilization of the property in order to add an additional building to be used as a training facility. Here we have some views of the subject property. So this is the view from Cane Break. Looking in onto the subject property, it is worth noting that at this time, there isn't any sidewalk facilities along Cane Break, nor any that lead along that entrance drive into the actual facility itself. Here we have a view of the field house structure, which is the largest structure on the property. The proposed development of the structure is going to be located on the left, from your view here of the screen, and we'll go into that a little bit more detail in the development plan shortly. So here we have the development plan. As always, Mr. Martin will be on to discuss the development plan in a little bit more detail, but this shows the existing facilities with a couple of kind of key differences, this being the structure proposed here, which is a 7,200 square foot indoor practice facility. So this is weightlifting equipment and some field space, but is not intended for actually hosting events and is strictly for use by the SARA athletes. The applicants are also proposing an expansion in the parking areas shown here. This is to kind of be accomplished at a later date. The applicant has indicated the priority is to construct the building first and then raise the funds for the parking lot expansion. and so in the conditions that staff will lay out later on in the presentation, we address sort of the phasing of those different operations. But essentially the site operates as it has currently with the addition of that structure, with the addition of the parking. Staff in the review of it found that this was in line with the comprehensive plan. It provides us community facilities in a location that has already existed. It holds the urban services area concept by kind of conforming with those buffer area uses, and the Rural Land Management Plan advocates for an agricultural buffering in this area. So it is in line with those goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the Rural Land Management Plan. As always, this is subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan, so Mr. Martin will be on to discuss the development plan momentarily, and then I will follow up at the end with the conditional use that is necessary because this is now in the AB zone. But I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time about the zoning component. Technology. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay, thank you. Mr. Martin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The staff report on the associated development plan starts at the bottom of page 6 on your agenda, continues over to page 7. And there it is again. Daniel showed it to you. It's pretty straightforward in this regard. Here we have Canebrake, provides driveway access into the existing parking. As Daniel pointed out, they are proposing a new expansion of the parking lot with an overflow zone as well. There's going to be some overflow. Here is the new facility, the field house. Again, you can see its relationship to the existing baseball field and existing facilities, and then, of course, the football field, the soccer lacrosse fields which are very nicely demonstrated on this plan on the aerial they weren't quite as obvious but then again they don't have to be that well defined except when they're in use here's a walking trail of course around the property one aspect something that they've added to this version of the plan actually is floodplain oh i'm sorry i'm sorry thank you yeah i'm so used to go that way. But again, there's a little bit of floodplain on the property right in this area, and they've added that. That was one of the items that was addressed. There are some cleanup items on this plan. Again, these are primarily Article 21 requirements, giving us complete information in terms of lot coverage, floor area. They needed to clean up, delete a note that was not applicable. There's a couple of discussion items that were really well discussed at your committee hearings, one of which was a discussion about off-site stormwater. Well, there is no off-site stormwater. That's an erroneous note, and it'll be deleted from the plan. It's just not necessary. You can see it's a large site, a lot of green, and it's self-contained in that sense. So with that, there was also a discussion on the purpose of the proposed field house, and Daniel touched on that for you. That was an item of discussion. Again, the new field house, 7,500 square feet. There was discussion about that to whether or not what its use was. Were you bringing the public in? Were you going to have events there that would have the public there? Were you going to have bathroom facilities and food, that sort of thing? Well, it's a field house, and that was discussed at some length at committee level. It's for practice and those sorts of things for the students and the student-athletes at Sayre. So, again, in essence, it's just a great big building for people to practice sports in and that sort of thing. So that was important because of any impact it might have on existing septic tank systems and that sort of thing and any extra work they might have to do in that regard. And the last item, it says discuss place builder criteria. Well, that's not applicable. That's one of those good old cut and paste things that stayed in the conditions, but it's not applicable, as Daniel explained to you. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about the development plan. Any questions? It's working. And just for clarification, are you suggesting that we delete conditions 18 and 20 from that list before we vote? Actually, you could delete 18, 19, and 20 if you're satisfied with what you heard, both at the committee and today. Okay. Thank you. Back up on the conditional use. All right. So Daniel Crone, planning staff again. The last kind of component of this site is the conditional use permit. And so because they are seeking this new zone, they are having to apply for basically the operations of this entire site under the newly formed zone. So Article 8D21 allows for indoor and outdoor athletic and recreational facilities that allow for lighting, loudspeakers, as well as limited concession sales. So the subject property is going to remain utilized how it has been utilized previously in the past with the addition of the proposed structure, the proposed parking. One thing to note that previously under the AR zoning, the subject property was not supposed to have a loudspeaker system. It's my understanding that there has been one that has been operating for the past couple years at the property. This kind of cleans that up. It would allow for the outdoor loudspeakers. We have conditions and the conditions of approval that kind of speak to the orientation of that to make sure that it's not a nuisance but with the location of this property and the size of this property the operations of the site and the proposed addition would be screened from adjacent properties and wouldn't propose a nuisance or otherwise negatively impact the surrounding area so staff is recommending approval of the conditional use it won't have an adverse impact on future development it doesn't negatively impact the adjoining residential uses and as long as the outdoor loudspeaker systems are oriented away from the adjoining properties their operation will not pose a problem also all necessary facilities are available and adequate for the proposed use and we have five conditions listed in front of you there were two additions added since the last time the staff report was generated they speak to kind of the phasing of the proposed parking lot areas typically because this is a conditional use it has slightly different timing restrictions as far as when this development has to occur. So the five years brings it in line with kind of the typical development plan schedule and allows them to construct the building first that they have money for and then later on without having to come back before you and get the same parking lot reapproved. Number seven addresses a new condition the applicant is agreeable to that addresses sidewalk facilities. So bringing sidewalk facilities that are present on the site into Canebrake Drive to provide connectivity for the individuals in the parking lot. So just adding an additional sidewalk connection on top of the additional conditions you see kind of before you hear. So staff is recommending approval with the seven total conditions listed in front of you, and I would be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time. Okay. I'm not seeing any questions. Thank you. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant, SARE College, doing business as SARE School. Since this is kind of an abbreviated hearing, I won't kind of give the full presentation. We are in complete agreement with the staff's conditions for the zone change for the development plan and the conditional use permit. quickly, I did want to basically just kind of show you all again what this is. This is just a weight room and kind of synthetic turf facility with kind of roll-up doors. It is a modular structure. We have it listed right now, I believe at 7,200. That was kind of the largest footprint that these facilities came in. We believe that it actually now is only going to be about 5,400 square feet, and so it is even smaller than what we are showing on the development plan itself. As you can see, it is a very, very basic concept. It's a majority of it is just basically the synthetic turf and the weight room facilities. This is, again, there are no bathrooms. This isn't kind of heated or cooled. This is just basically a training facility to be able to utilize in inclement weather, and this is only for SARE students. This is not in any way, shape, or form for any type of other teams to utilize, to be rented out for other sports or anything like that. It's the same kids that are coming here all ready to train. It just is giving them an indoor facility. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you, Mr. Nicholson. And I'll put a copy of the presentation in the record. All right. Thank you. Thank you all. All right. So we can bring it back to the commission because we do not have anyone in the audience. So we have three motions, zone change, development plan, and conditional use. So the floor is open. And. Mr. Davis? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I move for approval of PLN MAR 23-8, Sayer College. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second it by Ms. Box there. Okay, now we can vote via the black box here. So please cast your vote. Y'all not working? Man, okay. I give up. If you vote in favor of that motion, please raise your hand. She's fine. Okay, that passes unanimously. Mr. Ornson, it was working the last time I was here. When you got here, it stopped. It's a problem. Is he working? That's fast. That's fast. And so I also move for approval of the conditional use associated with this application. Okay. We're going to vote. Do we have a second? Ms. Barksdale is a second in that motion. We're going to vote with your hands right now. If you vote in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And then I move for approval of PLNMJDP 23-8. Okay. And are you deleting? Oh, I'm sorry. Deleting 17-18-19. No, 18-19-20. Okay. Correct. Yes. And this is 38. It's 38. Okay. PLNMJDP 23-38. Thank you. Got it. With 18-19-20 removed from the conditions. Okay, and we got a second by Mr. Boxdale. Please raise your hand for the vote. Yes, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nixon. Okay, so to put us on page two, Flora Investments, PLN MAR 21-18. Staff? Thank you. or opposition for this request. It has been provided to you all, so feel free to take a look at that as I go through my presentation here. So this is a request by Flora Investments, LLC, to rezone 1.035 net acres of the property at 2717 Flora Fina Street, which is a portion of that property, from professional office P1 to commercial center B6P zoning. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to construct a two-story commercial structure The applicant is also seeking a conditional use in order to operate a parking lot as a standalone use within the P1 portion of the site that is going to remain. The applicant, in their discussion of place type and development type, has chosen to situate this as a regional center and a medium-density non-residential-slash-mixed-use development type. Staff agrees that both the place type and development type can be appropriate at this location, but we'll touch on that a little bit later on in the presentation in more detail. So just orient ourselves towards the property here. So it is the portion of the property outlined in white on the center of your screen here. So the total property is approximately two acres. This is the front portion that they are seeking the B6P zoning. In the immediate vicinity, so we are out in Hamburg, so this is Sir Barton Way, runs to the west of the subject property. Florafina connects in. You'll be able to understand the distance and relationships a little bit better once we bring up the aerial image. but we'll zoom in a little bit here. So there's a variety of zoning kind of in the immediate vicinity. This orange color that you're seeing is the B6P zoning, so that's the existing Hamburg Mall zoning designation that the applicant is seeking to kind of incorporate itself into, so working off of the larger Hamburg Mall development. This blue is the P1 zoning, so the back portion of the site is proposed to be retained as P1 zoning. This is part of a larger office park that was established in the early 2000s as sort of secondary to the Hamburg Mall development in this area. We also have a mix of residential zoning across Sir Barton Way, but primarily subject property is seeking this orange B6B zoning and leaving the back portion P1. Here we have an aerial view of the property, so this is really the last kind of remaining parcel within the Hamburg Mall that is not yet developed. You can see the subject property itself, vacant with the professional office development located behind it. This is the longship office structure here. This is a bank. They share an access drive here that connects to Florofena Street. Here we have the mall, Burlington, and I believe a furniture store. Thank you. the applicant is proposing to develop this site for a hibachi restaurant with incorporated offices on top this is how the subject property looks today so you can see they're primarily flat with a little bit of a slope in the rear of the property as well as the accompanying office uses that are forming the rest of the office park it is worth noting that no change in the subject property zoning today affects the office park designation of the rest of the parcels that have the P1 zoning in this area. So this is really focused strictly on this subject property itself. Here's the view from the other side of Florofena. So this is sort of the view of the mall that they're trying to connect to. In conversations, initially at applications, staff had questions on, how is this subject property connecting to the rest of the mall development? What does that feel like as a pedestrian? And how are those two going to incorporate and merge if you're seeking the B6P zoning designation? So this is the view basically a pedestrian would have on crossing the road and then integrating it within the rest of the Hamburg Mall. Here we have the development plan for the subject property. Once again, Mr. Martin will be on momentarily to discuss the development plan in a little bit more detail, but this is a revised plan. Their initial version of the plan had a structure of the same or similar size located near the center of the property with essentially kind of a sea of parking around it. The parking in that kind of configuration was not very pedestrian friendly, kind of created a barrier and sort of left this development as this own incorporated island. This applicant, upon meeting with staff and getting the revised recommendations from the committee meetings, kind of changed up their design. They brought the structure further forward. They changed the zoning lines to, while keeping the same acreage, create more of a regular standard zoning boundary rather than the proposal before and really tried to activate that Flora Fena Street frontage. So the building has been brought up as far as it possibly can as there are easements located in the front portion of the property. The applicant is proposing to activate this with outdoor seating, outdoor dining, as well as some facade articulation to really try to bring activity closer towards Florida Spina Street and push parking to the rear of the development. Sorry. So with the discussion of the place types and the development type, the applicant is choosing to situate this as a regional center. So this existing Hamburg Mall, this existing element, it is attempting to tie into that. So that is where we're getting the mixture of uses, the multimodal connectivity, access to transit that's called for at Regional Center is being met broadly and whole by the entire Hamburg development. With regards to the development type, this is a two-story structure with approximately 22,000 square feet. So this fits in with a mixing of uses and the size that is generally called for with a medium-density, non-residential, slash mixed-use development type. In further effect, the applicant's changes, bringing the structure further to the street, creating additional pedestrian connectivity, brings it more in line with the medium density non-residential mixed use. And staff agrees that both the place type and the development type chosen by the applicant can be applicable at this location. With respect to the applicant's letter of justification, we just wanted to touch on kind of a number of the goals and objectives that we highlighted in the initial staff report and the applicant kind of provided further information or addressed with the revised plan. So the first is identify areas or opportunities for infill, redevelopment, adaptive reuse, and mixed-use development. This goal is being met. This is a vacant parcel that has not been developed like the rest of the Hamburg Mall has. They're choosing to create a kind of a denser product here that will meet the requirements of the B6P zone. there's theme A goal 2B so that's respecting the context and design features of areas surrounding the development so this property adjoins not only the Hamburg mall but also the professional office park where we've got two and three story structures this applicant structure is in keeping with the height and the general kind of size and massing of some of those nearby structures and is meeting this comprehensive plan goal there's goal theme A goal 2C which is incorporate adequate green space and open space into the development projects. So staff on their initial review of the original design had highlighted questions on how each portion of the site, both the B6P as well as the P1, was meeting open space, vegetated space. How was this space being utilized? So the applicant has provided information that shows they meet both of those requirements and has provided information on how this site is actually going to be activated, providing information on how this open space is actually usable and is going to be incorporated in the site as outdoor dining, seating, and in other similar areas. Finally, we've got theme D, goal number 1C, which is concentrate efforts to enhance mass transit along the corridors and facilitate better service for our population. So this has the same, has access to transit that delivers down Sir Barton. This adds additional density, additional uses that makes transit more viable by increasing the desirability to visit this area. Within respect to the development criteria, there were a number that were brought up in the staff report. The building orientation should maximize connections with the surrounding area and create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. So the structure no longer has parking serving as a barrier between people walking from Hamburg Mall over to the development or able to do so without crossing in any drive lanes in front of the building. They brought the structure up as far as they can. created sort of a vertical edge. They're activating that space and aren't sitting alone in sort of an island or sea of parking. Parking should be oriented to the interior of the rear of the property. They have done this. So the parking, there is an aisle along the side, but otherwise it has been pushed to rear where it adjoins the P1 zoning and that kind of larger parking area makes more sense. The pedestrian connectivity focused on the front is mainly building, open space, and vegetated area. Development should create and expand a safe, connected, multimodal transportation network once again. Simplifying the site, bringing it forward, providing those connections, and making it more feasible for pedestrians to utilize this site is something that is now being met with a request that wasn't under the initial iteration of the plan. Finally, we have roadways should provide a vertical edge. Once again, these outdoor areas, this building being brought up as close as it can, provides activation in an edge rather than an empty parking lot. Finally, developments should explore options for flexible and shared parking arrangements for currently underutilized lots. The applicant has indicated that they've had some discussions with the neighboring property owner and that the neighboring property has indicated that they would like to see the traffic on-site managed on-site. So they were worried about the spillover parking and so the applicant has indicated that the parking provided on-site both within the B6P portion and the P1 lot that is remaining to the rear should be adequate in order to serve the needs of the restaurant itself. So staff is recommending approval of this request. We find that it meets the goals and objectives that are relating to infill, supporting transportation, improving quality of life opportunities. We find that the justification and the development plan meet the development criteria and policies that are related to this. including those for site design, transportation, and environmental health. So this recommendation of approval is made subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan that Mr. Martin will be on to discuss momentarily. And then as a reminder, there is a conditional use for the standalone parking area to the rear in the P1 that will be handled after that. But staff is recommending approval at this time, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, staff. Any questions for staff? I'm not seeing any. I'm not seeing any. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the staff report on your agenda for this development plan does begin on page 3 at the bottom and continue over to page 4. This is a preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change. So as you all well know, you're going to see a final development plan on this property should you approve this zone change and the council approves it and it moves forward. So as Daniel explained, this is a revised development plan that did in fact bring the building up as close as they could get it to the Florafina right away. Again, there are easements in the front that can encroach on utility easements, sanitary sewer, that sort of thing, easements along the front of the property. Here is the access easement that runs through the property, actually serves the properties as you go on through the office park. In fact, you can maneuver internally from the Florofeno right-of-way to the right-of-way to the north by just utilizing the access easement and moving between the parking lots. The building itself is a total of 22,550 square feet on two floors. The restaurant's 13,500 square feet. That sounds like a pretty good-sized restaurant to me. That's the first floor, so they'll have an offset in the second floor for the office space. They, again, are proposing 117 parking spaces. as you can see, this pretty much mimics the original layout with parking from the original office plan that goes back some years ago. And again, by utilizing this area of parking and rear parking, they were able to get rid of the parking here, bring the building up so they could activate it. Now, one of the discussion items that Steph had with them was, okay, and this is typical, they want people to park and go in. This, in essence, This will kind of be the front of the building. That's why that activation is so important. And on the final development plan, once again, that's going to have to be reviewed to ensure that we do have good activation along that front to encourage the pedestrian experience and the orientation to Florafena. It could be patio dining. It could be various things that could be facade features, that sort of thing. But, again, that activation is important. They're going to need bicycle parking. items like that as part of their multimodal plan. The challenge on this site, and the challenge with a lot of sites that we've seen, and you can see a condition about denote compliance with open space requirements. It's hard to meet open space requirements when you utilize those perimeters quite often, which is common and something we used to see quite a bit in development. Everybody called it open space. Well, it was basically landscaping and bushes and things that kind of decorated the building and around the perimeter. So it's difficult to use these new islands for the parking. To a certain extent, they help, and they can help count towards that. But generally, as you all know, with the new parking requirements, the idea for these islands is we want more trees and more green, and we want to shade the parking lots. So the usable open space becomes important. This area is one area that they've indicated that they could utilize, again, with their open space. I mentioned this is a preliminary. There will be a final development plan for your review and approval should this go forward. A few cleanup items. I mentioned front of the building, pedestrian access into the building needs to be clearly designated. There's a stormwater easement up in this area of the plan. Here you can see it on the original plan submitted. It wasn't quite clear, something they just need to make sure graphically can be identified. And then they had a slight number total on their parking to be corrected on the plan. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on the development plan. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Owens? Mr. Martin, did I understand you the access lane, in essence, is you can still go through it? Oh, yes, sir. It's an access segment. When that original office park was laid out, you had a series of buildings proposed, and then the parking was all interconnected and allowed. And, you know, we encourage that reciprocal parking and access. That's fine. And then also you're talking about the entrance being on the floor of Fina or on that end of the building. Is that just for the restaurant, or is that going to be for the office, second floor office building as well? I believe the applicant will have to answer that question on how they would anticipate access to the second floor. That's an excellent question. Preliminary development plan, and on the final, we would certainly want to see that. But, I mean, it's our understanding. And, again, parking, everyone, all your business owners, all your restaurants, they want people to park as close to the front door as they can. So we are anticipating that there will be an entrance in this area. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Nickel. Yes, Mr. Martin, I understand that you are trying to activate Florafina as opposed to the other two corners. Is that what is possibly in conflict with the complaint for the neighbors? I haven't fully reviewed that. Okay, thank you. We'll answer that question. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? concerns thank you mr. Martin mr. Crumb right the last aspect of this request is another conditional use permit request so this is a conditional use permit to allow for the standalone parking area in in the P1 zoned portion of the lot here. So this is somewhat of an interesting circumstance because the way that this property was rezoned, in order to meet the floor area ratio requirements, the other requirements of the B6P, only part of the lot was rezoned. So this leaves this portion in the rear with that existing P1 zoning. Now normally, if there was a use in the P1, that parking would be accessory and there wouldn't be a conditional use permit necessary. However, since they are using this on this portion of the lot that is not sharing the B6B zoning and there isn't another use there, we have to kind of review it as a kind of independent parking lot, which requires this conditional use you see before you. This aspect of the plan also changed when the applicant changed the layout for the rest of the site. The initial version of this request, staff had raised some concerns on how it was going to flow, with parking going around the entire building, created kind of a larger area of conflict on multiple drive lanes, some kind of confusing paths for vehicles to take. Moving the structure up has had the side effect of kind of standardizing how this lot was laid out in the back. It's much more regular, much safer kind of interactions between the vehicles there. With regards to the amount of parking provided, staff had raised the question on, identified kind of earlier in the presentation, on if there was any availability between the subject property and the neighboring property to have that cross-parking, have some kind of shared parking to reduce the amount of areas being provided on site. Once again, the applicant indicated that this is the amount of parking that they believe will fully accommodate both the office use and the restaurant use on site without spilling over. So staff, in their review, are recommending approval of this. We find that it shouldn't negatively or adversely impact the surrounding area because the parking lot will be large enough to accommodate the demand for the project. It's kind of consistent with the character of those professional office lots, parking lots that are directly adjoining, and that all adequate public facilities are in place in order to handle the proposed parking lot use of this location. The recommendation of approval is subject to the four kind of standard conditions you see in front of you relating to approval of the zone and all necessary permits and approvals taking place. Staff would be happy to entertain any questions you have at this time about the conditional use permit portion of this request. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. Also here with me today is the owner and applicant for this property, Anna Takur, over here, and also Jahad Halony of Vision Engineering. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for having this hearing today to review this application. In total, we have spent, I think we originally filed in 2021, so we've almost spent three years trying to get this to work out. So we're thankfully to finally be in the position to be here today. Since 2021, we've had several meetings with staff. We've been to several technical committees, subdivision committees, zoning committees ultimately we receive favorable recommendations this is because we took their concerns ideas and recommendations and reworked the application justification and the development plan to what you see today because of this we're in the position to ask for your approval from P1 to B6P for 1.035 acres located at 2717 Flora Fena Street. Also, we're asking for a conditional use permit for the accessory parking within the P1 portion of the property that is to the rear. And finally, we're asking for approval on our preliminary development plan. So we're in agreement with all the conditions proposed by the staff. Because of this, we will not be doing a full presentation, but instead we'll be glad to answer any questions you may have or respond to any comments by the public if further discussion is needed. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Matt, as far as my question earlier, how do you foresee the entrance to the second floor of this building? Okay, first I'd just like to say this is preliminary, and the building is somewhat conceptual. We have the square footage, building coverage we have to meet, so it's going to be similar to this. We propose to bring the people into the front of the building where we show the handicapped parking. And then once you get inside the building, there will be a vestibule area where there will either be stairs to the second floor or an elevator. So I just don't have the details exactly where that's going to be. Okay. And if the grades work out, too, we may have access from a second level, too. Okay. Preliminary. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Thank you, Mr. Carter. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this particular application? at 2, you can do so, step up to the podium, give us your name and address. Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Weiner, and I represent HAP property owner, Hamburg Place Mall. I want to say, first, apologize because there were several notices on this development issue that went to our registered agent in California, and we weren't notified. So the first we knew about this was early this week, and I got in contact with Mr. Crum, and he gave me all the data and the information. And the letter of objection you have is from, I believe, Eric Meyer. Is that who it's from? That's our in-house attorney. And I want to say that we don't object to the development as it stands. Our concern is the connectivity. This is a, as they stated, a 13,000 square foot restaurant. And the amount of traffic economically to get that to work and the fact that Florafina connects directly into the major commercial delivery lane of Hamburg Place concerns us. If you look at Florafina, it dead ends directly into Regal's, which isn't a big deal because it's a theater. They're getting popcorn. But our concern is Burlington. It deadheads right into their loading dock, and the truck movement is past the store backing direct in, which is going to be right in front of Florafina. And so we wanted to go on record as saying we think that that traffic pattern and the access connectivity between the two properties needs to be given some very careful consideration for security reasons. That property, when it was originally developed by Thomas Enterprises in 2000, it was contemplated as office. The connectivity that exists today between Florafina, the office park, and the lower parking of Burlington was contemplated as an office use and that kind of traffic across our property. A retail or a restaurant use is a much increased imposition on our physical plant, and we would have liked the applicant to have reached out to us and discussed it with us. Everybody else that is on the property, that uses the property, pays their proportionate share of CAM charges, which we think is fair. And so this kind of came as a surprise to us, But we just want to say that our objection, if there is an objection, is the safety issue and the connectivity. And we'd just like to go on record as saying that we would like very careful consideration taken in how those two pieces connect. And that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Christina Keith, and I represent Longship Logistics. I'm not sure if the objection letter that you have isn't from my office. This is our second objection letter that we've put in the record with respect to this plan. We generally are concerned about the change in the character of the office park. Longship Logistics has spent millions of dollars creating a state-of-the-art office, and now the proposed extension of the B6P puts my client next door to a 13,000-square-foot hibachi restaurant as opposed to other sanctioned office uses. We want to acknowledge and put on the record that, similar to the prior speaker, We have concerns about the increased use that comes from having a restaurant next door. We also want to note that the applicant has indicated that they have engaged in community outreach in order to address neighbors' concerns. That has not happened. Our very first meeting with the applicant was yesterday. And in that meeting, they explained the repositioning of the building. It still creates a situation where the restaurant is facing our building. It's not really contiguous with the development, the B6P development. In fact, it abuts the B6P development. The back of the restaurant is next to the back of the movie theater. That's the configuration. So really, the frontal facing portion of the restaurant is directly towards our office. We are particularly concerned with the parking. They've indicated that they have more than enough parking. And we believe that may be the case given the number of parking spaces that they have after my discussion yesterday with Mr. Carter. But in connection with the community engagement, we proposed a reciprocal parking agreement, which they said in their application they asked for and could not come to an agreement. We were never asked for a reciprocal parking agreement, and in fact we proposed one today and they have refused to agree to that. So we would simply like to put on the record the fact that we attempted to give them the reciprocal parking arrangement they've asked for, and they've denied us the ability to share parking. So those are the basis for objections. I have other objections in the letter. If anyone has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you. Hold on one second. Mr. Davis, you had a question. I just have a question for our staff. We've seen one letter of objection, but we're being told there are two. Mr. Crum, did you hear Mr. Davis? Yes. So the letter you have in front of you is the only official submitter that we have. We did exchange emails with Ms. Elizabeth Weiner, who didn't opt to submit any kind of further kind of opposition letter. So the one in front of you is the only one that we have in the record at this time. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So we just run the rebuttal stage and bring up Mr. Carter, unless you have any questions. I do have one question. Where in the information you provided us is referenced a reciprocal parking agreement in your recommendation of approval? So it gets brought up just as with reference to the conditions on they have sufficient parking to meet their demands on site. So that's, let's see here, the parking lot will be of a sufficient size to accommodate the parking demand for the proposed uses without spilling over onto adjacent properties. So it's just more in the aspect of the information the applicant provided to us about the community outreach and their concerns informed the amount of parking they provided. So that's why that was chosen. I'm just asking, so it looks like your staff recommendation of approval was not contingent on a reciprocal parking agreement. That is correct. Okay, great. Thanks. Thank you. Ms. Warrick? I don't have the letter in front of me, but it seems like the first one or two items were really legal questions, whether the size of the plot fit the criteria for the zone change. Is legal staff weighed in on this? I can address that. Yes, so that reference is in reference to the V6P requirements. So by tying into the larger Hamburg development, this large regional mall, they're able to meet that requirement. If they were, say, a standalone parcel that wasn't contiguous and wasn't tying in and building off of the Hamburg mall, that would be where those requirements kick in. But staff, that is not an issue in this particular instance. Thank you, Mr. Crone. I'm going to get Mr. Carter. To address some of these comments that were made, is it Elizabeth Weiner? Weiner. So the restaurant, what's proposed is 225 to 250 seats. So as far as parking that's required to that, we're looking at maybe 62 parking spaces just for the restaurant portion alone. He's also, the applicant is going to have offices in there, and they want to make this be their kind of regional hub for their restaurants, and they'll do all their business out of this too. So some of the spaces are going to be geared towards a professional office use almost, which is similar to what's out there today. So I guess my point to this is the impact of traffic is really not going to be much more than it would be if it was professional office. Ms. Keith some of her comments were geared towards community outreach and we understood we needed when we originally filed back in 2021 we did a zoom call and sent out to the notification area and we only actually had one person attend that Zoom meeting. The notification area is small. There wasn't that many on it to begin with just simply because it's all commercial and there's just very few landowners. But we did make an effort to get a hold of them, and nobody got back to us, and so no more effort was made. More recently, after I believe it was the subdivision committee meeting, it was brought to our attention we should try to do community outreach again. So again, we made an effort. We sent out an email. We sent that on June 9th. So between June 9th and today, we have heard back from two people. And both those people said they weren't interested. One of them was representative of Hamburg Place. They said they weren't interested in attending the meeting and did not object it. And then there was another lady, I believe she lived in a condominium or town or apartment. I can't remember exactly where she lived, but she said she was not interested. And I would note that on that email, and I've got a copy of it when we sent it, David Allen, who is representing the longship property as well, he was on that list and he did not respond. So a few days ago we sent an email out and asked if they were interested in talking and subsequently we have talked a few times. And I will say there was an agreement brought up to our attention. We talked about it before the hearing today. And actually, right before the hearing started, we were given a copy of it. So we haven't had a chance to read that and digest it. But the owner is certainly willing to discuss that. And they understand we want to be good neighbors with them. They want to be good neighbors with us. So we're definitely going to work on some kind of parking relationship between the properties. We don't want to impact their property and they don't want to impact our property. We all just want to get along. Really, I mean, we have made an effort to get some kind of outreach out there, but we just had very little response. So that's where we're at today. other than that I'll be glad to answer any other questions okay oh I will say miss Keith did send out two letters of objection but the second letter was really a recap of the first letter so it's similar in the objection so I don't know if that's what was referred to as the two letters. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Ellis. Mr. Carter, and I'd hate to go back, I know you said this was preliminary, but I thought I heard Ms. Keith indicate something different as to where the entrance to this restaurant would be. Can you clarify that for us? that can you bring up the oh yeah I'll just point to it. So this will be the front right here. So the entrance will be in this area here. Okay. Go back to the microphone. Okay. So if you're looking out at the entrance, is that Longship's building or is that a bank building that you're looking at? What's directly across from it? This is a bank here. The wrong ship is just out of the view. They're back here. Okay. And then here's the living theater and a few other businesses. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Mr. Bell. During our subdivision committee, traffic had some questions. I guess it was Steve or whatever or some concerns. and I presume with staff giving approval that they were satisfied with things. Okay. Very good. Thank you so much. All right. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Carter. For the citizens, the objectors, this is a chance to come up and respond back. If you have anything additional that you would like to say or add, you can do so. Okay. Ms. Key? I only want to respond to the fact that as part of their description of the community outreach that they engaged in, they indicated to the staff that they had approached adjacent landowners with a reciprocal parking agreement, and they could not reach an agreement. And my point is, we are the adjacent landowner. We have not ever been approached with a reciprocal parking agreement, but now that we've approached them with a reciprocal parking agreement, they've denied our request. I understand it's last minute, but it's last minute because we haven't been reached out to. We were in the last hearing that was postponed and introduced ourselves to Mr. Carter, so he knew exactly who to reach out to in the event that he wanted to have more communication. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Crump? Oh, excuse me, hold on a second. Yes. Ms. Key? Would you mind pointing out on the plan, could you describe the vehicle circulation issues that are of concern to Longship? I'm actually with respect to the vehicle circulation I'm going to defer to David Allen who has a better sense of how the increased use is going to impact the ingress and egress hello my name is I'm David Allen I'm a commercial real estate broker here in Lexington I've worked with Longship for many years. So we engaged Mesquite to help us with our concerns. Mr. Allen, can you use that pointer? Do you have it? Yes. And you can take the microphone off if you need to, if that doesn't work. How do I point? There we go. So right in this area, Longship, I don't know if you guys are familiar with Longship. They're a trucking logistics company here. They're a fast-growing company, and they have about 150 employees in the building next door. They spent upwards of $10 million investing into this property. And so the concern is that with the parking from a restaurant and the higher-intensity use of this property is dumping into their parking lot here, and it could create a problem. And not only with traffic, but also cleaning up and just all the things that go along with a more retail use. And so we know that there's going to be a restaurant here, but we don't know what the future use would be should a restaurant not be there anymore. So that's part of the concern, but we're trying to figure this out as we go with them. And our first real meeting with them was yesterday. Mr. Davis? Yeah, go ahead. Would the, and I'm sorry, Mr. Allen, would the applicant be amenable to a condition that a parking lot maintenance agreement be executed? When you say maintenance agreement. I'm sorry, what Ms. Keith was referencing. A reciprocal parking agreement, yes. We're not in objection to a reciprocal parking agreement. We just want to be able to review the agreement, and we were just handed it to an hour ago. So I'm not the one to review it. It's going to have to go to the owner's attorney, and her attorney will talk to their attorney. And between the two of them, they'll come up with an agreement they can both agree on. But, no, we're not in objection to that. I'm not clear in terms of the objections you've raised about that, how a reciprocal parking agreement would address the concerns you have. We're not sure either. Okay. That's it. Okay. I thought I was missing something there. Okay. Mr. Carter, thank you. Can I ask you? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Mr. Carter, would the, just hypothetically speaking, if there were a barrier, a fence, for example, along the shared property line, to the, yeah, would that, would something like that change the, your client's intentions? No, I don't think so. I don't think our client is dead set on having these connections. I think that, you know, from what we're hearing from staff and that connections are an important issue, and it's good to have it interconnected. But certainly, you know, we don't need those connections, but we're willing to do either. Get rid of it or keep them in. We'll do whatever. Okay. Yes, sir. Yes, you step up to the podium. My name's Jihad Hallani, and I'm with Vision Engineering. in order to ask this question basically... Right, look. Okay, so this is the excess easement basically that's serving longship, and then we are maintaining that easement exactly as, or almost as is right now. This is the property line over here along that kind of border between our site and longship site. So basically, as you can tell, the driving lane, it's half of it on longship side and half of it on our side. So by itself, it's kind of leaning toward landing to basically sharing that kind of access between the properties. As well as here, it does not show on the top of the screen. But if there is a barrier over here, I don't think they can fit the 20 feet driving lane around even their building. So basically that layout work in conjunction with their layout to make their site work on the long run and also work for this facility for traffic circulation to work as well. And we understand that Longship has a plan to expand their building for additional square footage which is we don't know where does it fit on their site and how it's going to impact our parking. So my clients are not objecting and they want kind of reciprocal parking agreement, but without showing their long-term plan what's going to look like with additional building and how their parking circulation is going to rotate around their building and how they're going to address this area over here, it's kind of hard to commit to something that's basically blindly committing on something. But we want that basically that parking, reciprocal parking between both property. But this is basically the main concern. If there is a barrier over here, we will lose one, two, three, four, five, six, seven parking spaces, and we can make our site work by itself. But for them, they're going to have an issue over here because they don't have 24 feet for circulating of traffic around their building. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you, thank you. I don't think staff has any other comments. Just one more question? Yes. I'm going to take it back to the first objector. Now that we've got the diagram in front of us, can you point out the concern you raised about traffic flow in that diagram? Unfortunately, the plan cuts off where the major concern is. Can you use that point? red button right see if I'm smarter than the button I'm sorry back or do I go back or forward this way am I going right Yeah, we just have the inside, but we can bring up the aerial. That should be able to. This kind of shows it. This kind of shows the picture. And the picture is better because the plan is a little misleading, as sometimes plans are. You know, it's hard to get a feel for it. So, oops, sorry, wrong button. So that right there, that's Burlington's loading dock. and right there, directly across from Florafina, is Regals. And Bob's discount is about 100 yards the other direction. This right here is the main delivery route for the entire property. So everything from at home down to Target, that is the travel lane for all of our delivery traffic here. So it's not just these three, but the big concern, What we're afraid of or concerned about is this, because the truck is going to pull forward, and they're going to come right in front of Florafina and stop and then angle their truck and come back in. And, you know, those small cars, passenger cars, get lost in those mirrors in a minute. So that's our concern. And the way this was originally designed and developed, the interconnectivity, if you look at all of the drive lanes that connect the two properties of which there are three, it was always designed and intended based on an office use. And if you go there today, the amount of traffic that interconnects from our property to theirs, it's minimal. We don't get a lot. It's mostly our trucks that are coming through that area. Thank you. Mr. Nichols, you had a question. One more thing. Thank you. So can you tell me a little bit about, so Longships is a logistics company? Yes. And they're a, okay, I just wanted to confirm, a trucking logistics company. Okay. Thank you. Matt, as this is a preliminary plan, is there a way that we can be assured before the final that they get together and work things out at this juncture? Yeah. Because it sounds like everybody's kind of speaking like they've tried to, but they haven't tried to, and yet here we are, and now we're trying to, and yet it's preliminary. And so staff, you know, you all recommend it, but it sounds like somebody's missing something. The answer, Mr. Will, is yes. This is a preliminary plan. We can place a condition on this plan at the time of final development plan. a reciprocal parking agreement will be reviewed or required to be evaluated. We can come up with some language. You know we do this quite often on preliminaries. We project to the final and then to the future that certain things will be resolved. And we could place a note on this plan that a reciprocal parking agreement shall be resolved at time of final development plan. Now, hopefully it will be resolved, everybody's agreement and work. But it could also be resolved in that they can't come to agreement. But we can give them the opportunity that way. Can you address the withdrawal versus trucking? I'm not. I think during the normal review with traffic. Pardon? So the question would be, will it address Ms. Weiner's concerns for the development as a whole? I think up to a point. I mean, first of all, fluorophene is a public street. and the public is allowed to use it and the various businesses are allowed to use it. So I think as part of our review at the next level, we can certainly get traffic engineering to weigh in and see if there are some things that can't be done to help facilitate that. Now, sometimes it's just a matter of schedules and management by the private property owners when there's conflicts or not conflicts. And I know that's a little more complicated now than it used to be because of the way deliveries are scheduled and the supply chain issues. But, again, I don't know, Graham, how much we can do, but we can certainly make an effort to try to make it better. It may require, again, cooperation between the private entities on private property. Thank you. I see any other questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission here. Any further questions, concerns? Mr. Wilson? Yeah, just a clarification. Where he indicated, Tom indicated that we could put a resolve in here. Is that under the conditional use? At this time, it's not there, I guess. Are we going to put that in as a... Okay, so that's the recommendation, is to make sure that that's located in there so when the motion goes through that that is a part of the plan. Thank you. Do you want to make a motion? If you... Okay, ladies first. Ladies first. Is this condition that we're adding, is this on the development plan rather than the conditional use? That's on the development plan. It's on the development plan. Is it? Yes, sir. Okay. Further clarification on the development plan, we've got 13 items. do our course we can strike out that discuss place builder criteria because that's a kind of a normal thing and substitute the resolve in there for that. I mean, I'm not sure how to put it on you yet. Well, let's get through the zoning part. Let's get through the zoning first and then we address the development plan second. But we still... Okay. So if you're going to... Are you... Okay, I'll try anything. Making a motion? Yeah, I move, Mr. Chairman, that we approve PLN MAR21-18 Floral Investment LLC with the conditions provided by staff. Okay, we have a motion. We got a second by Ms. Wirth. We're going to try to vote electronically again. The second came up there. The field's not working. When I touched it, it came up. I just touched the screen. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. So you mean to tell me this whole time y'all didn't touch the screen? We didn't ask that. Hey, we need some new commission members. So we got two new ones and one of them about to kick you out. I'm sorry. The motion passes unanimously. Okay. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I would move that the conditional, well, with the development plan, the PLNMJDP 2160 Hamburg Place Farm, Subartan Way Office Park, be approved with the conditions that have been identified with the addition of, resolved with the parking issues and traffic concerns be addressed. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Mr. Bell. Touch the screens this time for your vote. Is it up? Okay. Chairman Forrester, I think you want that condition to apply at the time of final development plan. Oh, yes. So we need to add that. Okay. Mr. Wilson, you want to add that? Yes. According to our attorney, I use her language. that terminology would be applicable to the final development plan. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. The motions and votes still stand, and that passes unanimously. Conditional use. Okay. And, Mr. Chairman, I move that the approval of the conditional use is identified by staff. The items that have been identified by staff be included in the conditional use. Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Seconded by Mr. Bell. Please vote. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, African. Thank you, Dennis. Thank you, guys. Okay. Do we have any commission items? I don't think so. Staff, anything? Mr. Duncan? Thank you, Mr. Chair. A few things I want to say. I'd like to recognize Mr. Teddy Mott, who is sitting with staff. He is a rising sophomore at Model in Richmond, and he has been shadowing us for a couple of Thursdays. He attended our work session last week and the hearing today to sort of get an idea of what the Planning Commission's role is like and what planning is in this community. And Teddy's asked a lot of very insightful questions, particularly for a young man. So I'm glad to have Teddy here and share our experience with him. And would you share what he's shadowing with the purpose behind, potentially-ish? I think Teddy expressed to me that he was curious. He started out by talking about how transportation planning works in a community. And then that led to, of course, the fullness of what we do in planning. So I believe Teddy's just kind of outsized beyond his years and his interest in this field. And any time someone shows an interest in the planning field, especially when they're preparing to go to college at some point, we grasp on to them. So we want to provide as much foundation as possible and appreciate Teddy's interest in this. Secondly, Mr. Chair, I wanted to remind you all that your next meeting will be August the 3rd, the committee meetings, and they will be in this room again. And then looking ahead, just particularly since we were talking about August the 10th, your subdivision meeting, and now that will include a zoning item as well. At this time, that meeting is scheduled for this room as well because we expect that the updates to the council chambers will continue. However, if we get information that they are complete and we're able to move back to the council chambers, we'll do so. But at this time, you may want to plan on this configuration for that zoning hearing on August the 10th. And then speaking of this room, we have been tweaking the layout over the various meetings we've had this summer. And, of course, we've been asked to be in this space because that other space was not available. But there will be times from time to time over the course of the coming months and years that we will find ourselves in competition for the space in the council chambers and we'll need to be over here. So we've got an enhanced audio system and certainly we are being broadcast live right now. So all that is good. But we're certainly interested in your comments about the arrangement. I'm not here to take a public input now, but please feel free to share with our staff how you feel that this arrangement works for a public hearing, public meeting type thing. And we will certainly continue to make adjustments to make sure that you all are set up in a way that is conducive for you to get the information you need, that you feel that the audience and the applicants have the same process, and we can continue to make adjustments. Mr. Chair, that's all I have. Thank you. Okay, this meeting is adjourned. Sorry.