Thank you. It is just a little after 1.30 on August 6, 2026. This is a meeting of the Lexington-Fader, McCartney Government's Planning Commission Zoning Committee. Our first item on the agenda today is PLN MAR 2615. I've done this twice. I always push the button on the left. The one that says push to speak, I don't push for some reason. It says a lot about me. All right. So this is a request for a zone change from professional office P1 zone to a downtown frame business B2A zone. The property is 0.509 net and 0.620 acres. The properties are 512 and 518 East Main Street. The proposed place type is second-tier urban. Proposed development type is medium-density non-residential slash mixed-use. And the applicant is proposing to the development will consist of 16 multifamily residential units within a six-story building for density of 24 units per net acre. Multi-family residential will include ground floor interior parking for owners with surface parking for guests and deliveries. Each unit will have its own exterior terrace patio and balcony, along with access to the building common area, which is a rooftop terrace. The multi-family residential will have a vehicular entrance along Kentucky Avenue and two pedestrian entrances along East Main Street. And while not included as part of this zone change request, 522 East Bain is part of the development plan and has access on Kentucky Avenue the neighbor the applicant had a neighborhood meeting on mace 26 2026 that was attended by planning staff and neighbors the developer presented the project and answered questions citizens expressed interest in activating main street in the proposed density the applicant indicated at the sub division meeting this morning that they intend to have another hit another neighborhood meeting after this. So on screen here you have the subject property. It's in white. To the east is you've got Camel Club and Good Shepherd Episcopal Church and residential properties. To the south there are office uses and residential. To the west there are more residential uses. Also northwest of the subject property is the Wellington Arms development right here in red. And then north you have B2A zone properties and more commercial zone properties along Midland and Indiana Avenue up this way. So as I mentioned 522 East Main which is right here is part of the development plan but it's not part of this rezoning request it is already zoned B2A which is what the applicant is seeking here. So 522 East Main and 109 Kentucky Avenue which is the parcel right back here we're both rezoned for a residential condominium development in In 2008, the properties were previously zoned P1 and R3. So that is a rezoning. It also included conditional zoning restrictions, and I'll get into that a little bit later in the presentation. And then as you're looking just at the surrounding area, you've got a range of uses, including P1 and the light blue here. And then your orange and brown zoning is residential. And then the red, and I'll call that an off-red or a pink, is different business zones in the area as well. so on screen here you have this yellow overlay that's kind of going this way and over here this is a historic over h1 overlay district so these properties are not within a historic overlay i just wanted to point out that there that this is nearby to the east you've got belcourt and to the west ellsford and the historic preservation staff will be providing a report on the properties and their history in the coming weeks which we'll share with you we just don't have that at this time so the applicant as mentioned earlier they selected second-tier urban as the place type and they mentioned medium density non residential mixed-use development so the proposed zone B to a is not a recommended zone within this place type and staff finds that a downtown place type would be more appropriate here within the downtown place type high High-density residential slash mixed use would be the appropriate development type. And as mentioned, the B2A zone is the recommended zone in this place type. And then here on screen, the applicant provided these renderings as part of their response to the multifamily design standards. Just wanted to bring those up and staff finds that they are in compliance with those. so on screen may not be super easy to see but at the top half here you have the conditional zoning restrictions that were part of the original map amendment or excuse me zone change for the abutting properties that are part of the development plan staff has not found that there's any conflict with what the applicants were posing in the previous conditional zoning restrictions and the excuse me below that the applicant has proposed conditional zoning restrictions as well, and staff finds that these restrictions are appropriate due to the property's close proximity to residential neighborhoods and its location on a significant downtown corridor. So staff is recommending postponement, and there are two main reasons for that. First, as mentioned, the proposed place type where the applicant wrote their justification based off the second tier urban. We would like them to address the downtown place type. A large portion of these two place types, the criteria overlaps, but there are some differences, and we want the applicant to address that. And then second is the applicant should provide information regarding the possibility of connecting both sites, so 512 and 518 East Main Street through a shared access point at the rear of both properties, as there's already a parking area to the rear of 512 East Main, and the applicant intends to modify an existing access point off of Kentucky Avenue for 518 East Main. and Mr. Chaney will discuss that in a little bit more detail during the development plan review. And that's all I have for staff's presentation at the moment. There are some variance requests that I'll get to on later, but if you have any questions for me right now. Okay, thank you very much. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Yes, sir, Mr. McClure. Yeah, this is in regarding to the place type. the applicant sort of talked about this the second tier urban this is outside of what I would consider downtown being smack dab basically in a little sliver that was carved out of the Aylesford neighborhood between Aylesford and Belcourt what is the staff's logic on that other than the fact that they're asking for a downtown zone what is the staff's logic that this is not a second-tier urban place type and is a downtown place type. So part of that was about the density they're proposing. We found that that would be appropriate for the downtown. And then just based on the size and density of the development, it's kind of where we're leaning towards for the reason for downtown. And to follow that up, so there's also a couple of existing pieces. One, we have existing downtown zoning immediately adjacent, and also within sort of the realm of how we're going to be looking at this moving forward. This is within the identified, as with the efforts with the downtown master plan, this is kind of existing within that framework. So it is not a part of CBD or that downtown kind of core, but rather that midtown piece that extends further out. So these are the areas where you start seeing a blur between the two. The applicant rightly notes that this is, as we're sort of moving away from the interior of the downtown, but ultimately whether it's a second-tier urban or a downtown place type, these types of higher-density developments generally are appropriate, and so that's sort of where staff is coming from there. And then also in regards, this is both the downtown place type, but then also in regards to the development plan itself, being in a historic area, even though it's not in the historic zone, I am noticing that the entrance in the lobby to the building is in the rear and not in the front of the building. And that seems more of a suburban-type layout and design, so I was wondering if you could speak to that. Is it related to our downtown walkable streets and the treatscape? So, one second. And while he's sort of gathering his thoughts, there will be entrances that are accessing and utilizing Main Street as well. So really that's just more of an interplay where the available parking is on site. So we are asking them to locate the building up front, to coordinate that parking to the rear. So part of that is a design choice, but we are looking at, as you can see, in sort of the rendering of the structure that does have sort of all facades or all areas sort of identified. Also, if this was sort of a, you know, mixed-use building within its actual kind of framework, obviously the single-story building is being retained as a kind of separate commercial use. But this is residential, so the residents, anyone that is going downtown, would be able to access that building from the main street there. Any of the commercial or the visitor parking is located to the rear. So we were making sure those elements were met, not that it necessarily needed to have additional sort of a full secondary entrance to the sort of general public is what we were looking at. I have a question on density. what would an appropriate density look like for the second tier urban place type? Yeah, so really we're looking at this really from more of a, our framework as it exists today is less of a particular dwelling units per acre, but rather sort of a built form. So historically we've considered medium density residential to be really anywhere three to four stories. and then from that point up, usually high density. So here we have six stories. It's not necessarily a ton of units because there's sort of these condo, these 16 condo units, but from a built perspective, six stories puts you in kind of an area that is more akin to downtown. It's kind of consistent with the existing development just on the opposite side of the two properties that are existing here. So that's sort of where we were thinking kind of coming from. Where second tier urban is as you're sort of progressing down, so where you're seeing things that are maybe two, three, four stories, even some single-story residential development, depending on kind of what part of town you're looking at. So looking at how those two things kind of interplay. Okay. I just ask because you have the Wellington Arms right there on the corner and then the woodlands, and those are, I guess, what could be considered higher density, obviously. So I was just curious. Commissioner Mollendavis. wrong button so sorry it's not me and you so sorry and I do apologize for missing the beginning of the presentation very sorry I don't think I got a clear answer or understanding to Robin Commissioner Mickler's question on the main street elevation will there be a pedestrian entrance yes but it won't So there won't be just a, it won't look like what is shown in here. Is that right? Yeah. When they. Yeah. So in the top one, which is the Main Street elevation, we have, I'm not sure what on the left, a solid thing of masonry in the middle and then maybe parking behind on that one. So where will the entrance, quote, unquote, a pedestrian entrance be? Yeah. Yeah, our understanding was it's dead center in the, not in the masonry part, but in the two that show, look like windows and some columns. Right here, and then right here. In the arches. In the arches. Okay, very good. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, do you want to do variance now or later? We'll do the variance after the development plan. Great, thanks. All right, good afternoon. Chris Chaney, planning staff. The Associated Development Plan, MJDP 2655. This is the John Edna Collins property in Vaughan Development, Lexingtonian. I'm going to go ahead and zoom in a little bit. On the development plan, Main Street is to plan south, and Kentucky Avenue is plan left. So it's depicting the proposed building here. This is the existing building. This lot, they're not proposing any changes at this time, but it's part of the development plan, part of the zone change, but there's no proposed improvements at this time. uh so they this is the existing building here with the the parking in the rear on our proposed building the parking comes off kentucky avenue here um and they're proposing uh it looks like three spaces in this area surface parking and the remainder or well not the remainder but the majority of the parking will be on the first floor of the building and so what one one thing that we've discussed and and that was asked was to connect the two parking areas for the potential future redevelopment of this property if that should happen. Some of the concerns in the area but not specifically about the connection there's a large bur oak and an elm tree that they're proposing to save but that I don't think you can see it on this really well. The drip line of the burr oak is over these three spaces and much of the rear, but there is currently a garage and parking in that area. So the applicants indicating that they're actually reducing the impervious area within the drip line. I'm trying to think what else to kind of point out on that. The garage in question is in this area that that will be removed. Yeah, and then the waiver is related to the connection between the two sites, and it's required by the ordinance, so that's why the waiver would be necessary if they don't provide that connection. And with that, I'll open it up to you all if you have questions for me. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions? Mr. Bigler? If there's no proposed changes on the unit that they're proposing to preserve, given the new regulations that they wouldn't have to come back with a final development plan, that indicates that, you know, that kind of raises the question to me, is there another motive for including that property? Did you all discuss with them why this is even in the development plan and what that reason would be? I wasn't in on the conversation about why that's included, so I may defer to the applicant. Yeah. okay do we have any other questions on the development plan at this time saying none thank you Chris and now we will discuss the variance request for the waiver so there are both I thought yeah the waiver that Chris mentioned is about connecting the two parking areas the VU a areas which is required in article 16 now and then Dalton is going to discuss a variance which is just the distance Great. Thank you. They're requesting two variances. Let me get to that slide. So they're requesting to reduce the vehicular use area perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 0 feet and then to reduce the property perimeter buffer zone-to-zone screening from 15 feet to 1.5 feet adjacent to 113 Kentucky Avenue. So this is the development plan just zoomed in a little bit to give a little bit more context. So it's really about kind of this buffer along here is what they're asking for. So as staff is in favor of approval or is okay with approving this, but reviewing the plan, we did sort of have a question, and it looks like there's no point where the buffer ever gets down below a foot and a half. So we would suggest that instead of reducing the perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 0 feet, to just reduce that to 1.5 for both sides. But other than that, we don't really see an issue with what they're proposing here to reduce the buffer, just to make sure it's consistent with both. And the applicant, if they want to clarify that, if they have a reason for the 0 feet, they can explain it, but we weren't really able to determine one. Okay. Thank you, Dalton. Do we have any other questions or any questions on the waiver? or the variance, sorry. It's variance. Okay, seeing none, thank you very much. Mr. Gross? Brandon Gross here on behalf of the applicant. Tony Barrett's with me. Let's see if I can, where do I want to stop? Well, I'll start here with kind of the existing conditions. So this property right here and this one at this location, these are already the B2A lots. And when these were rezoned, this was supposed to be, I believe, a four-story condominium building in this location is my recollection. And so that's that location. this here is owned by this is owned by Billy Justice this property that his office building is here and so is um here Mr. Justice is in Saratoga this week for I guess racing is going on and so um he was not able to attend today and then um the Schnabel's own this parcel here they were also not able to attend um today but the plan for this track here will be the nothing is being changed and the schnabels intend on converting this into a live workspace where i believe the daughter is going to live and then they're going to have the office below or have retail and when we talked with them about our project they asked whether we would include them within this they will continue to own that property and the the idea being is they have more flexibility on retail uses with the B2A than they do with the P1. And so that's why they're part of this application. We're not going to be doing anything, changing anything at this time with that property. Then you have currently you have this parking structure, a little bit of vegetative space, and then essentially all the rest of this is just vehicle use area right now. So even the trees that are located, they're located right smack in the middle of the parking lot. There are trunks with a little bit of space, and then it's all asphalt currently. And so that's kind of where the existing conditions are. And then right now, Schnabel access is here, and then we will be accessing at this location. um we did ask for the uh waiver which i'll get to in a little while to not connect these two but i'll get to that and so what first i want to change go to the place builder and so place builder is a flexible product one piece of property could fall within several especially when you get kind of these gray areas as an example i could have made justification as a corridor for this property potentially because it would be located on East Main and Highway. So when we were looking at it, we were juggling, and we talked with staff going back and forth, is this second-tier urban? Is this downtown? We went with second-tier urban, but I could easily see this also being downtown. It's really, at this point, it's more of a subjective. Each person may have a different point, but the good news is actually by picking the second-tier urban, I actually had to explain more design criteria than I would have if I had gone to downtown. There's actually less criteria than downtown. And the only two differences I looked this morning or between the meetings is CL141 says development should contain a mixture of land uses with a prioritization of residential. And we're doing that. We've got the Schnabel. It's going to be a commercial building still. We're going to be residential. It's going to be higher density. And the second one we were missing was development should be high density and contain a mixture of uses. Once again, we're high density. We've got a mixture of uses. And so while we did not say we were going to be downtown, we are fined if that's the planning staff and the commission's decision that that would be inappropriate. We think second tier is also appropriate. But in either case, those are the two items we were missing. I will supplement our justification letter, just explaining those two items that more or less we are complying with those two design criteria. So I wanted to mention that. And then when we designed the building, we did take note of where the significant trees were. And so we attempted to take down as few. So the staff have been identified four, and we're preserving two of those four, one being the bur oak, the other one being an elm tree. Currently, I've got some photos here we can pass around for you. Thank you. So the first one, so this shows you the garage. This is the dividing fence. This is the bur oak. And you can see here, you know, where it's going. Thank you. And then this is the second photo. So the garage will be removed, and most of that will be open space, green space. Yeah. So what you're looking at right now is here's the garage. This is the open space. The bur oak, I believe, is right here. Or right here. It's one of these two I can't recall off the top of my head. And so in this one here, this is the magnolia that we would be removing from the site. but we would be removing that if we had to create the access point because I believe it's in the building kind of access area too this one shows you the bur oak also and then this last one is the ginkgo tree this one is an unfortunate location I don't know if it's female I'm assuming which one stinks? The female. So I hope it's not female because that would be a lot of stink. But that wouldn't be coming out, yeah, in either case. And so that one's right middle of the parking lot. And so when we – She doesn't say – Oh, yes. Sorry. The tree was not in fruit when we were there. Yes. And so when we designed the building, we tried to make it to where we did not remove all the significant trees. Now, part of the access waiver that we've requested is we've requested to not connect it, because right now there's two parking lots, and they're not currently connected. It's in existing condition. We're not changing anything on the Schnabel lot. And so if we did connect the lots, we would once again be putting impervious pavement where the bur oak within the drip line in that area. We think we'll open up a lot of that green space when we remove the garage, remove a lot of the surface parking, and there'll be actually more space for those trees than there are currently in that area. And so we've asked for a waiver. We would be, and I broached this with staff, we would be comfortable to put a note that says, if such time that the schnavel lot is redeveloped there will be an access between the two lots that way if there is a high intensity development in the future we would then connect those access points but right now schnavel's a small lot four or five parking spaces ours a small lot we you know we're trying not to make that connection um and then there's a tree of heaven there which technically technically it's a significant tree That's the second person that said. Oh, yeah. No. They said they wanted to keep it so that they wouldn't have to connect. Time out. No, there's two. Yes, that area of the connection is where the Tree of Heaven and where the Burke Oak area is. Burr Oak, sorry. but it's close to that area and then underneath our ordinance it is a significant tree. I would agree it would not be in my yard. I wouldn't keep it but also get rid of bush honeysuckle English ivy winter creeper Virginia creeper all that stuff. None of that stuff exists in my yard. So I would not ever have this tree in my yard. Definitely wouldn't let it get significant if it was in my yard. However, if we were to remove that tree, it does provide canopy, and it would be a reduction in the canopy. But once again, we will remove that tree if that's the consensus. You said that this morning, and I made a mental note, and Daniel just helped me out because we're a team. Significant tree means a healthy tree not identified as an invasive species. Okay. So if we've identified that as an invasive species, I think the desire is to remove invasive species and not maintain it. I relied upon Tony Barrett because I didn't have time to look at the zoning on it. Even though someone left it there for too long is what happened. But the question I have, though, is if you did connect there, would it be in any way detrimental to the health of the Baroque? It would be more pervious pavement in the area. It would take the Baroque out. Okay, hold on, hold on. It's right in the driveway. After last week's meeting. Let's keep us on track. Okay. Well, Tony. Well, I haven't studied, but it's right there. I mean, I don't know how we would necessarily get around it. Brandon just said it was in the back corner. No, I didn't. No, the elm is in the back corner. The elm is in the back corner. Do you have a... The elm tree is here, and the bur oak is one of these two. The Burr Oak and the Tree of Heaven are side by side. They're probably within... Right here. And the connection would be in this area. But in either case, we're going to be meeting with staff and with the urban forester on the mitigation plan. We had proposed, in addition to planting more trees, we had proposed to mitigate by donating trees for Woodland Park or one of the other parks, depending, to increase the canopy. so that was one of our proposals on that item. And then Tony, do you have anything you want to add? Well, I'll just, with regards to the trees, we did meet with Eric on site and despite the tree of heaven being poo-pooed, he did not poo-poo it at our meeting so we took it as a consideration that it was a nice canopy and we would make an effort to preserve it. We are not. If we preserved, by definition, of the ordinance, we wouldn't have a buildable area on the lot. So what we've done is we have pulled the existing development around the trees further away to give them more arable soil. around their roots as best as we can. But we're making a, you know, as you can see from the photographs, the pavement is right up to the fence. The trees are buckling the fence. The Schnabel parking lot is as close to the trees as well on her side. and there's also about a foot plus or maybe a little more elevation change where the tree sits on the Schnabel property and then the fence, and then you can see in those photos the horizontal boards. That's serving as a bit of a retaining wall, and the justice property is paved about a foot, maybe a little more below that. So there's a, over time, I don't know how that all evolved, but that's the way it is today, and obviously it has been for many, many years. So the elm tree in the back corner is kind of wedged in there behind the garage, and obviously we're removing that garage, and our parking area will be well short of the back of the garage. So that area will be left open as open space to help support that tree. It's not a huge tree. I'm guessing it's a volunteer, but if I recall, it's an eight-inch elm tree. And it looks nice. It seems to be a healthy elm tree. Okay. At this time, do we have any questions for Mr. Gross or Mr. Barrett? Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you. So if the Schnabel property were not part of this overall zone change, there wouldn't be a requirement to have the vehicular access, right, joining between the two properties? Right, because Article 16 talks about when there's multiple buildings on a development plan, So the fact that they included that on their development plan for their zone change triggers that connection. Got it. And is there a precedent for allowing a waiver when something like this has happened, that multiple properties are included that aren't really, like, do business together, essentially? So that regulation was one of the 440, House Bill 443 new connectivity. standards that was incorporated into the ordinance and then waivers for the zoning ordinance requirements that's brand new. Okay. We haven't, this is the first time. Okay. I believe that somebody's asked for that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions? Brandon, are you all okay also with the one and a half foot? Tony's got to handle that. I'm fine with one and a half if that works from a plant material perspective. When I had another case that I took to the Board of Adjustment and I had less than eight feet, and I was advised at that one to reduce it to zero so that I wouldn't, because I can't have trees in the location, and the requirement is a hedge and a tree every 25 feet. Well, I don't have space for my tree. So in that case, I was guided to ask for zero so that it would eliminate the landscape requirement. So that was the logic that I was using to go to zero. Could you go back to that slide so we can see? I just wonder who are the abutting adjacent properties, and will they be negatively impacted by having one and a half feet? I'll say here. Yeah. I can show you the aerial first. So it's going to be along that dash line where the black is, and then it goes to the garage, and it comes over. this is a big parking structure for the Wellington arms and then all adjacent to here is vehicle use area for the townhomes here so there are no how you know there's a pretty good distance between the first residence and where we're talking and so we don't think it will negatively affect this property given the fact that essentially there'll be a parking lot next to a parking lot but I'll let Tony added. How do I go back to the slide? Okay. And then which one is the spot? Okay. Okay. All right, this is Kentucky Avenue right here, and this is the drive vehicular use area for the townhouses on Kentucky. In the front here, I'm meeting the eight-foot, and I've got those trees proposed there. and then I reduce to, I think, two feet along the, no, four feet along this spot here. So from eight feet to four feet, four and a half feet it looks like, and then this is the one and a half foot section right there in the very back, and what I'm, I've got a retaining wall along here as well, But part of my thought was to get this parking area back away from these trees as much as possible. I've pushed this parking area close to that property line. So that was my logic for that. And then, so there's the elm tree right there, and the garage is right there. So that's added green area around the garage. We have a generator here and a transformer here, and we anticipate our conduits to loop around this way, not coming up that way. So we want those to come in that way. And then right here is the fence along the trees, and I've got, I think, nine feet or so there of separation from the property land. Just one question. On the plan, where you mentioned, let's see, it's a park that's kind of perpendicular to the other parking, that the little stick-out guy at the top? Yeah, that guy. Is that actually parking? Yeah, those are two spaces. Two spaces. Okay, and is the X under the parking on the left where the Magdellia is? That's a tree. I don't recall what it is. it might be like a juniper or something. Okay. And where is the magnolia that you're taking out? The magnolia is probably that X right there. Okay. That one? Yeah, I think it's that one. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. No, you're right. Yeah. I think that's the magnolia. I think that's the ginkgo. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none. Thank you, gentlemen. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone? Well, I'm sorry committee we don't do public comment at something typically okay yeah okay is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular application today thank you sure thanks Brian do we have any further commissioner comment or questions or the floor is open for a motion of what to recommend to the planning commission as well as the variance for us. Sure. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair, to recommend to the full planning commission that PLN Mar 26 dash 15 Calgal Development LLC for a zone map amendment from P1 to a downtown on frame business, B2A zone for 512 and 518 East Main Street. I'm sorry, is that recommending approval? Recommending approval to the planning. The staff recommendation was postponement. Just want to clarify. Oh. No, they got it. Well, they recommended approval on the variance. Oh, yeah, approval on the variance. Is there a... We were postponement on the zone change, and we were approval on the variance. I'm so sorry. You were doing the zone change, I believe. I was. I apologize for that. Let me rescind that motion until I figure out what staff is saying about not approving the zone change. Okay. Because I missed that presentation. I apologize again. Is there any other comment? Sure. Well, I'll motion to postpone, send a recommendation of postponement to PLN MAR 26 S15, Calgary development. Okay. We have a motion and a second from Mr. Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion? This is on the Zone Map Amendment request. Okay. If you are in favor of that motion, please raise your right hand. Okay. That carries almost unanimously. Then I'll recommend approval on the variants of PLNM JDP 26-55. Okay, that's a recommendation to the Planning Commission of approval on the variants request. From Mr. Mickler, we have a second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Is there any discussion on the variants request? Just as a clarification, sorry, not to interrupt, is that as recommended by the applicant or the staffs? The staff alternative. Staff will turn. Although, hopefully, the staff will clarify with the applicant before the hearing regarding the implications of that one and a half feet and the landscape plantings. Okay. And just because I haven't read through all of this today, I tried to yesterday, does the variance affect the connectivity to the neighboring lot, or is this just on the... I see. Okay. I got it. All right. So we have a motion in a second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, if you're in favor of that, please raise your hand. Okay. That carries unanimously. And then if I'm correct, the staff did not make a recommendation on the waiver, and you all are looking at you are citing that as part of the reason why we need to postpone the overall zone change request. Would you like a second motion on postponement of the waiver? Actually, the zoning committee doesn't usually review waivers. Okay, so then we just leave that. It was more for your information purposes. Okay. All right. Moving on to the next item on the agenda. Thank you, applicant. We are PLN MAR 2616. All right. So this is a request for a rezoning from AR and B5P to corridor business B3 zone. The properties are 5530, 5560, 5600, and a portion of 5660 Athens Moonsboro Road, 44.8 net, 49.99 gross acres. The proposed place type is a regional center, and the proposed development type is a medium-density, non-residential, mixed-use. So the applicant is seeking to establish this regional center. It will have commercial lots for retail, hotel, and office space, and eight apartment buildings with 434 dwelling units, and there will be some dwelling units around some of the commercial as well. The applicant held a virtual meeting on July 9, 2026. The staff did not attend. so the applicant, when they get up to speak, can address what was discussed at that meeting. So the subject properties here, they're in white here, were originally zoned AR prior to the comprehensive rezoning of the city and county in 1969, and they remain unchanged, and this request is a result of the properties being included in the 2024 Urban Growth Master Plan expansion. so again subject property is in white on the screen to the south here in this kind of lighter green is AR zone properties you have to northwest B5P and then this is also where Hotel X which directly abuts these properties is located and then up here along Athens Boonesboro there's a variety of commercial uses such as restaurants like fast food restaurants and gas stations And then across I-75, you've got the Lexington Sporting Club Stadium. And then also Blue Sky Industrial Park up here to the northeast. And the Athens Ball Field Complex is to the east as well, right here. So this is one of three cases you'll see today that are part of the UGMP. This is in the Area 5 in the regulating plan. So you can see on screen, I've marked with a handy-dandy circle here, the applicant site. It's not an exact circle, but you've got the red for high-density residential, the orange for medium-density residential, and you've got some flex space over here, all three of which are within the properties are within those proposed land use types. So, as I mentioned, the development consists of 460 dwelling units across all the units, across all the lots, and the regulating plan would call for 458 dwelling units in this area. So, although the applicant's justification letter states that the proposal meets the Area 5 future land use map, no details are really going to be provided as to how the proposal aligns with the other elements of the 2024 UGMP, such as the regulatory framework and the development criteria. Just two goals and objectives that I want to highlight that are some of the bigger issues that we have. One, the master plan calls for this, like I said, this area to be medium density and high density residentials. Again, the red is high, orange is medium density. And the applicant has shifted the majority of the residential down to the rear of the property. and much of this area that is designated for high and medium density is now various commercial uses, including hotel and some other commercial uses. And then the other thing that we wanted to highlight, so you can see here on screen, I'm kind of following with the mouse, this is a proposed avenue that the applicant does show in their development plan starting, but they do not show following along with the grid that we have here. so staff just has a general sort of concern about the multimodal connectivity to adjoining parcels and in general the roadway grid that they're proposing here. These next couple of slides are just pulling from the regulating plan, just sort of giving an idea of what medium density. We can refer back to this if we need to, but it's got the dwelling units per acre, 11 to 25 net dwelling units per acre for medium. For high density, it's 23 plus. and then flex space, which is also part of this request as well. So the applicant has proposed a regional center with the medium density non-residential mixed use. And for the portion of the plan that I mentioned where they're showing commercial staff, does think that that's probably an appropriate development type. For where they've moved the residential to the bottom half of the property, the rear of the property, that's really more of like a high-density residential is what we're seeing. But, and then they're proposing about approximately 9.6 dwelling units per acre on average across the site. And then, oh, sorry. And the B3 zone is a recommended zone within the regional center. So they are meeting that. Staff is recommending postponement. As mentioned, a couple of the issues with the UGMP compliance. There's quite a few here on screen, but just to highlight some of them, the regulating plan calls for a service road along I-75 which the applicant is not showing and then the medium and high density conversation about where they're placing that and the practicality of they're putting a lot of high density residential towards the rear of the property they're not showing they're showing about 180 parking spaces we have some concerns about the practicality of this parking be able to accommodate that that density of use and the applicant I'm sure will mention they are proposing that the parking will be shared amongst the commercial uses on site, but there's not really clear pedestrian connection to these other sites to make it clear, you know, safe ways for people, if they were to use these other parking areas to get back, to get down to where the residential is, where they would be staying. And then, as mentioned, the avenue, that's a concern that we have. The avenue is shown starting but does not continue all the way through the property. And general concerns about the street grid and connectivity, so that's related to the UGMP. Staff is also asking the applicant to provide more justification as to how they're meeting the policies of the comprehensive plan. And then for the development criteria, I just want to highlight about four. So the applicant has not provided adequate justification as to how they're meeting the various development criteria or how they're meeting the multifamily design standards. And then the traffic study the applicant submitted is incomplete and missing information that must be addressed as required in Article 6.1. and then the applicant's parking demand study indicates a plan for parking that does not adequately provide parking for the residential development, which is kind of what I was mentioning about where that parking is actually going to be, the parking on that lot, where the majority of their residential is, and whether they're sharing. Any questions at this time? Thank you, Dalton. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? One quick question. I was looking at your all's report, page 2, where it says that the place type goes into a vibrant hub of commerce, employment, diverse housing opportunities, and entertainment. And one of the next sentences, they include larger buildings with active ground levels and intentional open spaces. Is there any open space identified? There is open space identified. The applicant may be getting into a little bit more detail, and I think it was part of what was discussed this morning. I think a lot of this is perspective. The flex space is really the thing that they're more kind of actively engaged in and what they're developing. But there is open space shown on the site. All right. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions for staff at this time? Mr. Mickler. Yeah, I have a couple of questions, and this is you touched on some of it, but along the corridor itself of Athens-Bainsborough, I see there is one outlawed restaurant and then a gas station. um what's the what's kind of the um is there any guidance on on on density or presentation to the corridors in our expansion area so because that's pretty I mean it's pretty vehicular use heavy all along that corridor basically We've got one out lot restaurant building and one gas station, which has a little building and then more vehicular use area. So that whole area along Athens Boonesboro will most of that sort of road fronting density, you're not seeing until the back where you're getting those residential units, which I think you're you are bringing that up. but I was wondering if there is guidance on that corridor, if you could speak specifically if there's guidance on the corridor section itself. Yeah, so within the UGMP, there's this sort of built form framework that's discussed. With this particular application, the applicant didn't really respond to a lot of that criteria, so we were seeking kind of clarification, but the UGMP talks about sort of along avenues, collectors, major roadways, having sort of a built activated form. The plan that they've got, and this will get sort of addressed a little bit as well within the development criteria, I mean within the development plan, there's some basic things like VUA being shown in front yards and stuff that just don't currently meet the zoning ordinance. So engaging with sort of the built form specifications for things like active depths, the location and use of a grid system. There's kind of a larger amount of design-forward discussion that will most likely take place once the applicant digs into some of the information that we've kind of prompted. So that was a good portion of the postponement was getting those starting pieces to kind of dig in further. And then this is just a clarification for me, because you mentioned it with the connectivity issue, but that sort of avenue that terminates there with that roundabout, is that a requirement to continue those roadways, or is that a recommendation? I think there's, and we can clarify, the idea is we want you to follow the plans that we've shown. I think there is a little bit of an idea that you can move those around some within reason, but I think for the most part we would want you to follow the grid system that we're proposing with the UGMP. Yeah, and in portions of this plan directly above the rural service area. So the pieces, if you could, Dalton, if you could bring up the map of the area again. Or we can go with the development plan too. The pieces to the south are outside of the urban services boundary, and then even a portion of this property here to the right is outside as well. So this is sort of a self-contained piece. The plan does call for sort of stubbing in and, well, first off, providing that 100-foot buffer from any of the agricultural zones. So there would be a stub and continuation potentially for any future expansion. One of the comments that we do have as far as roundabouts is that's intended to be the primary sort of road intersection system for our more intense roadways within the UGMP. So clarifying how these intersections are going to work, how we fit within the street network, how that makes sense with kind of the built topography of the site is all going to be a piece of that. But if you wanted to specify kind of where you were going as far as – the plan doesn't really show where that one sort of lone bull-out roundabout there is. It shows a connection further to the west for kind of a service road along I-75, but not any sort of direct connection further south. That's the area of concern. Is that correct? It's amongst the areas of concern. I mean, I think we have a general concern with just the grid of the roads in general, but that is part of that. And then the sort of last thing is could you elaborate a little bit more on the – because we're trying to encourage people to do shared parking. that's one of the things that we ask people to do. So here with the residential area, that is, you know, short parking spaces, and they're saying we're sharing parking with the commercial. That's kind of like on the checklist of what we're asking. So could you elaborate a little bit more about, And I'm guessing that's a pretty low traffic road back there, considering it's surrounded by low density. So what is – could you elaborate a little bit more about that shared parking concern, I guess? I think part of it is they're showing 434 units back here, and I think it's about 180 spaces. And then – fair point. Shared parking, we want to see that. But as to the practicality, there's not a connection to this lot here where there would be more parking. There's not really clear pedestrian connections that if somebody was to park up here on the other side of this hotel or up here at one of these residential uses and use this parking space, how they're safely getting down here and getting back to their home. And then just the practicality of it. And the applicant mentions there's a time of day kind of thing about some of these uses will not necessarily have an overlap with residential, but just concerns about how that's practically going to play out. If somebody is parking, you know, if you've got 180 spaces up for grab here, 434 dwelling units, people start parking up here, how is that going to really play out with are these cars going to stay there? Are people just going to camp in spaces? You know, we're a little concerned about that. And then the overlap that will happen with the commercial uses whenever they're active during the day. Yeah, and to just kind of follow up on that, the parking demand mitigation study that was submitted, is not calculated correctly. They provide the ITE manuals in sight to the number of bedrooms, but this is the number of units. So to compare across the street in another development that we are going to hear about for four-story, three- and four-story is somewhere in the ballpark of, I believe, about 800 spaces. So for this sort of suburban development, while we want to encourage multimodal transportation, biking options, connectivity, and the like, we're sort of seeing a disconnect between what is being shown here, which the applicants have indicated is more conceptual in nature, and kind of how the built-out density of the site. What we want to avoid is a situation for an area that was recommended for residential within the UGMP, distilling all of that into one area that maybe will or will not be built and kind of what that means. So here this is showing seven-story structures being served to the rear of a site without really any connectivity or really the infrastructure that we would normally see with that sort of level of parking, even within a downtown context. So that's where staff is sort of asking the applicant to weigh into more, to clarify within their parking demand study of what the ITE manuals would even call for here so we can have a conversation and ensure that the actual intent of this area, residential development, is being met. Okay, I guess I would just say that while I think that the clarification for the shared, for access to the other shared parking and to ensure that that is how that would work makes a lot of sense. At some point, one of the ways we incentivize multimodal transportation is not providing people parking. when you have parking directly at your apartment, there's an incentive that makes it a lot easier to drive. So as we see new development that is, by traditional standards, dramatically under-parked, to me that signals one of the ways that as a community we're headed in a direction where we will start seeing more multimodal transportation. So I hope to see more and more development plans that are under-parked by those ITE manual standards. So just a personal note from myself on that. I understand. I think it's more so the degree of the under-parking is what we're a little concerned with, but I hear what you're saying there. I would be okay with a few handicapped parking spaces. Okay. Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you. So, Dalton, I just have a couple of questions because I have a really hard time seeing this stuff in the notebook. So I'm gathering you are referring to the color diagram and your concern is that the road that's opposite blue sky parkway stubs into the development. Is that where we're talking about the development doesn't quite match up with the intended? Yes. Yeah. You're seeing blue sky here and coming across. And this is shown in the plan. It's coming all the way down. Right. Basically what would be through this hotel site. This hotel site. Okay. Instead, it's, you know, things split two ways here. Okay. Second part of the question is, could you please tell me what it says or where, okay, could you just kind of go through where are the residential areas, where is the hotel, and what is at the bottom left? Okay. Chris can maybe get into that a little more with the development plan. I did, and I still can't see. Sorry. No. I did blow it up. So before Chris gets going, are there other questions for me? Any other questions for Dalton? Tom. I think he can address your question a little more directly. Okay. Okay. All right. If we don't have any other questions for Dalton, thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. So, all right, let me see. Is that what we've, okay. Let's see what we've got here. Okay. So, with this development plan, the MJDP 2657, so, of course, we've got Athens Boonesboro. We've got The roads generally match the roadway network shown in the regulating area of the UGMP. They don't show the connection through, which is shown in the UGMP here. And then they also don't show the service road along I-75, and it shows a connection in this area from the service road. but just kind of really quickly they're showing a large retail structure here and that's the Power Motorsports they're wanting to move here from I believe it's Manowar and Richmond Road according to the applicant that's kind of the main driver of this right now and the remainder is speculative so that's we feel pretty confident that's what they want there. The rest of it could move around. Uh, the hotel that we've mentioned is this lot here in the, it kind of in the center. Um, and the way it's depicted, it does not show cross connections between the parking lots of the hotel and any of the, the surrounding, uh, parcels. Um, another concern that we've had is the proposed zone for, uh, B3 doesn't allow for vehicular use area, uh, in the front yard on a corner lot. And almost every lot is a corner lot Well, maybe not almost every, but many of the lots are corner lots, and they all have VUA in the front. So that's a big concern that we have from a design standpoint. They are showing the commercial. I think I believe maybe there's mixed use along Athens-Boonesboro, and then commercial that kind of wraps around the hotel. And then our multifamily is this area here with the associated parking. and this is, I believe Dalton mentioned, 180-some spaces, then with the proposal to share the parking across that roadway. Anyway, so that's kind of the quick and dirty. We can kind of go from there if you all have specific questions. All right. Mr. Wilson? One quick question. I'm not sure whether it was for this group or the first presenter. Where does the closest transit stop? That, I'm not sure. I'm not even sure there's one on the White Farm. On the White Farm or on Yorkshire? Yeah, Richmond Road at Yorkshire. Richmond. How far away is that from? Several miles. That's a good ways. Several miles. Does Lex Tran, when you do these development plans as such, does Lex Tran provide you with any criteria as what it would take to move or to provide services for? I'm not aware of that. They have not generally done that, but they are working to make sure that they have a transit plan for when development does occur in the new urban growth management areas. In fact, one of our NPO representatives or staff members works with LexTran directly, and they are working on plans for routes and so forth. The timing, of course, is really up to when development happens there. Okay, yeah, okay. Okay. And to Mr. Michler's point, I believe TRC or at some point we've discussed what the location of this makes it, it's just going to necessarily be a little more auto-centric because there's not the transit and the bike pad connections. They're coming, but it's still a long distance and the network's not built out yet. So that makes us really concerned about it being under parked just based in the context. Well, just to clarify, because this, I'm assuming these street cross-sections, I would guess would have on-street parking. and one of the things about um these uh i mean i would like to see less i mean well i look at that commercial area and it looks god awful to me but uh i think one of the better aspects is that there's shared parking with the residential on that. So, and I'm glad that you all are highlighting these necessary things like the front yard parking and things like that. I appreciate that. But with these new development formats in the expansion area as opposed to like a single family, there's not nearly as many curb cuts. So the number of on-street parking spaces should be quite high. Yeah, and that tracks. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Chris on the development plan? If not, we will now hear from Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of OKJitry, and I have great news for you. we are understanding of the postponement recommendation and have no kind of objections we know that this is going to be a very kind of lengthy discussion that we're going to have to have on how we comply with urban growth master plan how this site works this site was specifically kind of listed as a entertainment district in the urban growth master plan and so that's why we are showing the commercial that we are showing up front we know that we have a lot of work to do with regards to how this thing is gonna end up being designed so there's there's no no issues there with regards to the neighborhood engagement we had basically two neighborhood meetings it for one for this one and also for the one that is I think next up on your agenda it was kind the same pool of folks and interestingly enough they were only kind of concerned about this particular development and just I think it was a surprise that development was going to pass the interstate is what the kind of the I would say general neighborhood kind of thought was only two people attended but it they just they didn't know that property was going to be allowed to be developed past the interstate. At the end of the day with this one, we basically are just asking for B3 zoning. This is all very speculative. Dalton was correct that the Lexan Motorsports, the kind of large structure that is the bottom left of the plan, is the only actual tenant. He owns the property that's that's who is kind of driving this we don't have any hard plans in any way shape or form for any of these kind of other uses we just think that it's an interstate interchange and so B3 makes the most sense with regards from a zoning perspective we got a whole lot of work to do on this development plan and we're gonna have a whole lot of work to do before we could ever get a final development plan approved that is for sure and so we're just we're we're kicking this off we understand the postponement mr. Mickler we also understand the kind of debate that we're going to have to deal with with regards to parking interestingly enough one of the items that staff has highlighted is there are 830 bike parking places that are required on this site just based on the different kind of zoning ordinance regulations and in the urban growth master plan that requires one spot for every a thousand square feet of square footage and so that that's a whole lot of bike parking places for you know Athens Boonesboro I don't think you could fill that up at Woodland Park it would be tough and so it's this type of stuff that we're going to work through. We understand it's going to be a long one. So I thank you all very much for your time, and we are more than happy with the postponement recommendation. Thank you, Nick. That was refreshing in its simplicity. That was great. So, okay. Four is open for discussion or a motion. Yes, sir. I was going to make a motion. variety may be the spice of life, but the essence of life is simplicity. Move to postpone plan MAR 26-16 by reasons provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. That was a motion to recommend postponement to the Planning Commission. Second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Is there any discussion? If not, please raise your hand if you are in agreement. That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tickleson. Moving on to our next item. Yes, sir. All righty. Thank you. Next slide on the agenda, PLN MAR2617. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. This is a request by Ball Homes, and we'll be sticking in kind of the same immediate vicinity that we were just discussing. So this is property out 5085, 8th and Spoonsboro Road, and once again within the Urban Growth Master Plan area. So we will be having those same sort of discussions today. This is a request to rezone for a strictly residential development. So this is from an AR to a R4 zone. And this is designed to accommodate medium density residential development within a new complete neighborhood. Once again, this is to establish a multifamily residential development consisting of structures that are three to four stories in height. So just to orient everyone, this is a portion of a larger property. but the subject property or the piece being rezoned is highlighted in white. Here we have Athens Boonesboro Road, once again, as you're approaching the interstate, which is sort of running vertically here and is serving as a spine for much of the development of this area. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can see the existing land uses. We have existing B5P and I1 that predated this application. Once again, this was originally oriented towards serving the interchange service area. However, all of this has since been included within the UGMP and within the urban service boundary. Here is an aerial view of the subject property. You'll note that, once again, the access points here are aligning with the existing development that serves the soccer stadium. You'll also note, as you can see here, these are areas of drainage and steep slopes. This is an area with some challenging topography. It influenced sort of the road network that we see recommended within the plan, and it's going to be kind of a large topic of conversation between the applicant and staff as we kind of discuss the best way to develop this particular site. So once again, from a comprehensive plan perspective, a new complete neighborhood, so this is sort of the first piece coming online for this sub-area that includes other residential uses, village centers, and town centers. this portion as recommended within the UGMP is strictly residential. Within that framework, R4 is a recommended type as well as medium density residential. So from the initial place builder look, this is in agreement with kind of the framework we're looking at there. A lot of our discussion is going to be how does this fit in with the regulating plan as well as the overall tenants and kind of aspects of the urban growth master plan. So the subject property in this case is this portion down here shown in that red. So it was recommended for residential high density development. It includes an avenue that stubs in from the existing access point and carries through making a crossing of this the steep slopes and environmentally sensitive areas to serve this medium density residential here as well. We have connections that extend to the left towards our town and village centers. But once again, this is an area that is somewhat constrained by its existing geography. We have the interstate running to the right of this entire subject area. They do note that there are a couple points where the plan can call for future connections to be made. Once again, crossing an interstate is no light or even intermediate task. So that is something that is much further down the pipeline. It would take kind of an immense amount of coordination. So really the existing framework where we have this residential that more or less precludes any vehicular connection forces all of the development to essentially access Athens-Boonesboro Road. So how this development fills in, the roadway network that's associated with it, all are important to make sure that we have a development here that maintains connectivity while still kind of respecting the slopes that we have in the vicinity. I've actually overlaid, I got a little bit ahead of myself, but overlaid the recommendations of the UGMP, which are the colored aspects of this plan, with the applicant's development or the rough approximation of it. Just to sort of detail, the main differences are the points of contention that we will be talking about as we kind of go through this application is that the applicant's development features a medium-density residential development but chooses the cul-de-sac, this planned avenue that was extending north. You can see that the plan calls for that extending across here and serving this medium density residential development here. That's really going to be a point of topic for our entire kind of stay within this project. Ultimately, the Urban Growth Master Plan does acknowledge that there are areas of this slide, once again, shown in green here that are not intended to be developed or intended to be left as open space due to some of the difficulties associated with topography or other environmentally sensitive areas. And so as we are looking at this application, we're looking to the applicant for some more information as to why the plan was cul-de-sac'd, what difficulties they are seeing with crossing at that location versus other locations. But really the intent behind this is to provide that residential density in a way that maintains connectivity. And once again, Chris Chaney will be on momentarily to kind of discuss with a clearer view the actual application itself. But just wanted to highlight the areas. they largely follow kind of the footprint that residential is supposed to occur in, but the missing connection is really the main piece stemming there. Just from the urban growth master plan perspective, the land use that they're looking at is intended to be 23 dwelling units per acre. They are fairly close with what they are showing here. They are showing 560 units, while the math that staff is doing based on the identified areas and the acreage puts that minimum at a closer of 612 units. That will be part of the discussion moving forward as well. The applicant showing what their proposed densities are, how they've been calculating that. You are allowed to exclude some of the areas of, you know, that are being reserved for environmentally sensitive areas or open space. But ultimately, we need to meet the minimums that we're sort of establishing for these areas. So these are the land use that we're looking at. The items that the applicant still has left to kind of address are, once again, meeting the residential density that's called for, the changes to the roadway network, and the connectivity that results from that. We did not receive the full amount of information needed for either the parking demand study or the traffic impact study that's required for this development. We're asking the applicant to provide some greater justification about the aspects of the UGMP that they are meeting or not meeting or kind of raising the discussion of what some of the issues that they have been seeing as they have looked at their development and trying to square that with what has been sort of raised by the community through the master plan. And then once again, some information regarding compliance with the multifamily design guidelines. So at that point, staff is recommending postponement. We've identified kind of a laundry list of different criteria and information we're looking at from the applicant. But the big picture items are really with this particular location, having appropriate connectivity and the discussion about continuing that avenue and how that's best accomplished on this site. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you all have from the place builder and zoning side. Once again, Chris will be on to discuss the development plan and then answer any questions kind of stemming from that. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any questions on the place builder or zoning aspects of this plan for Daniel? All right. Seeing none, thank you. We will hear from Chris. Okay. Now we're looking at MJDP 2658. Let me see what we got here. Okay. That's what I got. That's all I got. So as Daniel mentioned, the primary access comes off of, well, the only access comes off of Athens Boonsboro across from the entrance to the soccer facility. It comes in and there's a cul-de-sac here. There is an intersection with the street that comes and stubs into the larger part of the property with an intersection and another stub going northeast. Northeast. They're depicting the multifamily structures kind of on both sides of the main road coming in with another row behind kind of accessed by the parking parking lots and then a couple buildings over here as well. Then there's a clubhouse and amenities in this area here. And then in addition to The UGMP issues that we've discussed already, the road network, those things. One of the other main issues that came up during tech, and that we discussed somewhat not as in-depth at subdivision committee, is fire access. Fire requires if there's 100 units or more, they have to have two accesses, and this currently has one. And if it has, I believe it's 600 or more, it has to have a third access. So we're getting close to the 600-unit mark with current proposal. So that's kind of one of the main concerns that we have outside of the ongoing UGMP questions that we've already kind of touched on. So that's kind of it. Okay. Thanks, Chris. Do we have any questions on the development plan for Chris at this time? Seeing none. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of all homes. Similar to the last one, we understand the postponement and we're kind of okay with that. And so we're not trying to push anything today. What I do want to touch on is the issue that I think we're going to see a whole lot on in all of these different new expansion areas. So I think Dalton and Chris did a very good job explaining kind of what we are proposing and how it does not comply. This road in the Urban Growth Master Plan is supposed to continue. We are not proposing that because there is a massive crossing that would have to occur in this location. And as we get from the urban growth master plan into actually developing all of these properties, we're going to start dealing with these issues a whole lot with where are the streams, where is the topography, and kind of how much of a change it is. I don't know if you all drove out during the stadium construction process, but if you did, I think you saw a whole lot of rock. And surprise, surprise, right across the street, we're going to have to be dealing with a whole lot of rock as well. So at the back of this area is where this road is supposed to basically cross under the Urban Growth Master Plan. Rory did not provide this to me this morning, but he was good enough to give this to me for today. I'm going to bring this around, but I don't have the audible mic, and so I'll just say this on the record. How is it? Yes. I'll be Pat Sajak. there is a 50 foot drop that is at the back of this property this is to scale because he's a very good landscape architect so this is Athens Boonesboro hello, Athens Boonesboro and the black dashed line is the existing contours. We have projected where we would build our cul-de-sac, ending there near the clubhouse, would end here. You can see from those two points it would be a fairly gentle straight line, not having to do much cut and fill. Projecting the rest of the direction of where that road would be for the crossing, you can see that this location here, there's, yes, if you were trying to maintain, no, so a couple thousand feet down the road as we get closer to the interstate crossing, we're up here at 10.05, 10.10, and our projected for our cul-de-sac is at 10.15, so that would be an easy straight shot, except for the difference between 940 something and 1010 is 60 plus feet of fill if that row continues in that direction and then you're crossing that. Who's going to pay for that bridge? Right. The question is, is a bridge the only option? To do a crossing of that size, yes. And environmentally. Because otherwise your fill would be, yeah. All right. And the Army Corps would not. So... And so all of this is part of the conversation. And this is kind of what we have to talk about, and that's why you don't hear me up here lecturing or ranting and raving. This is going to be a conversation. Yes. Well you told me I lectured this morning so oh gosh all right so it this is this is going to be part of this conversation I might have a little bit she's not wrong we're very anxious to work with staff we're very anxious to talk about this what my purpose this morning was what my purpose today is is to just lay the groundwork that we're gonna have to talk about these road placements in all of these areas for the next decade as this property that all of these properties are developed. It is very different when you are talking about the property from a master plan perspective and then when you actually get on the ground and that's kind of where we are right now. We see that there's a very big crossing issue there. We also understand the need for connectivity. We understand that we need to connect to the back part of this right past the stream. We think we can do that with regards to increasing the size of the kind of the local that we're showing right now into a boulevard in order to bypass the kind of stream area in order to tie in everything to make sure that there is a connection. And And that's kind of this right here to kind of avoid here's where the stream is that's causing the issue. And so we can tie into it in this way. We just need to make sure that staff's comfortable with it and the traffic engineering is comfortable with it to make sure that we're doing this in a responsible manner. So that's kind of where we are. And, again, we understand the postponement. We have no issues there. similar to the last one this is a R4 zone change request on property that is scheduled to only be multifamily development in the urban growth master plan that is only scheduled to be residential that's exactly what we're asking permission to do we just have to figure out how the road system works thank you Mr. Nicholson Mr. K Any questions? Mr. McClure. Yeah, I can sympathize with the, like, concern about cost. I think I can also sympathize that it's going to be a challenge for the community. At some point, I think part of the broader discussion, though, is when we want to develop a more connected community and maintain these grid networks, and we run into places where the development itself doesn't support that cost, do we leave room for that for 20, 30 years from now, or do we close that off so that in 100 years we have the new areas built, the same way we built the areas the last couple of decades, which are just push everybody into very few streets, basically. And so I think that's kind of just to add to what you say. Part of it is what is going to be required at this development, but part of it also is room for connectivity allowed in the future, even if a bridge isn't built in three years when the development is built. Sure. And that's what we have to prove, that we are still able to connect this entire area as called for in the master plan. Like, that's on us. what I would say right now is we are shifting a proposed road basically about 300, 400 feet over and still showing the exact same connection. And so while this basically, this connection does not cross right here, it does cross on the other side of the stream. And so we do want to show that connection. We do want that connectivity. We do want the grid section. It is just that I'm trying to see if we might actually have. Yeah, there we go. So that's the type of green space that we are trying to deal with is this property is flanked with area that we don't want to develop, that Lexington does not want us to develop. And so what we're trying to do is best be able to develop the property that Lexington wants us to develop and also connect us to the area in the back to ensure that type of connectivity. And again, that's on us to approve, to assure you all that we are doing exactly what the master plan wants to do without making a crossing that I think you could even argue goes against the comprehensive plan with regards to the impact that it would have on the environmental area. That's on us. We've got to prove it. We have not done that. We have not sat down with staff. We literally got that about 20 minutes ago. and so they this is all new information for them as well like now this now this yes and so like that's on us to prove and so that's why I kind of say like there's no hesitation whatsoever that we're talking about a postponement we know we got to sit down with staff we know we got to show our work we know we We have to show why the crossing where we're proposing is better than what the Urban Growth Master Plan is showing. And that will be the biggest kind of conversation. The good news is that all we're doing is proposing, you know, multifamily, where exactly where multifamily is supposed to go in this plan. We just got to make sure the infrastructure is there to support it. And Tracy's happy. Okay. The reason I'm smiling is, I mean, we've worked together for 20 years, and the land use is only a portion of the comp plan, right? So we've got to review all of it together because just having the land use correct doesn't really make it a first in agreement with the plan or a desirable place to live. That's why I said that was the good news. I didn't say that. What's the bad news? Everything was, you know, sunshine and rainbows. And one thing I would like to add that I didn't mention in the earlier part of my presentation, nearly all of the areas, sub-areas that we've chosen to add to the urban service boundary, in some form or fashion, have their own unique challenges. All of them are calling for significant infrastructure, things like major roadways, crossings of streams, et cetera. We'll see some in a minute on another plan. And once again, this was sort of from the inception was sort of intended. What we have to address that we are working through the privilege fee system now. That is an ongoing process so that one entity is not solely bearing all of the costs associated with something like a crossing, which could be cross prohibitive as a single user, but spread appropriately over an aggregate. That is still an ongoing process. And we will kind of keep the Planning Commission updated as those evolve. But it sort of will be a recurring theme in any of the development that really is, once again, calling for cohesive against multiple property owners, planning how these things can work out so that we don't make a bunch of micro-developments that suddenly don't work in the aggregate. So we'll be working with the applicant to kind of talk through all of this as we move forward. And I think Daniel hit it right on the nail there. Like, that's what I wanted to talk to you all about. I just wanted to tee up the fact that, like, this is going to be a conversation in all of these kind of areas as they come on. And this just happened to be a very good example very early on in our expansion process where I can point to and say definitively, we're going to have to talk about this road. And we're going to talk with staff. There's no issues whatsoever with us. we are aware of how much conversation is going to have to go on and probably how long this change is going to take. So I thank you all for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions, and I look forward to meeting with staff. Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Yes, Mr. Mickley. I would just say that I expect you've already discussed this but I just want to sort of say it here in the meeting that while we've discussed the natural area as an obstacle to the road and it's treated here as it is kind of in a lot of plans as like just a do not build zone So hopefully, as you're developing the plan, the framing of that will switch to being treated as the sort of huge asset to this high-density apartment. And that is part of our plan, yes. That very much is. We view this as very much an amenity area outside of this right here. So that falls down. Rory will have to be able to give me the exact numbers, but boy does it fall down quickly. Yeah, I lost it. As the property slams to the interstate, it falls down a lot. I think there's maybe a creek that runs through there. But you're saying your site is up here and then the interstate is lower, right? Yes. And so the area that we're talking about where the crossing would be difficult, all of that area very much is going to be kind of part of, I think, the amenity of this area, have pedestrian plans to make sure that this is a desirable place to live. The only issue is how much it falls by the interstate side. We also probably don't want people walking on the interstate. identified the bounds of we know where the blue line stream is and we do we know if it's intermittent do we know if there's a floodplain do have you done a floodplain study we helps us understand the extent of the we look on the mapping and there was no FEMA floodplain associated with this area. So we've not done a floodplain study separate from the... Right, well, and that's what we need to do. Hold on, let's let each other finish one sentence. So Mr. Bailey. So we've not completed a study of the area. And it will say it's not a FEMA floodplain, which is the governing body of what we show you. And contour-wise, where we have our last building, if we were to put it at that elevation, it's 35, 40 feet fall from the building, which has now gone down towards the interstate. So it's, you know, and you don't want to have a whole bunch of people right next to the interstate anyway, but you've got a buffer area that from where we're showing it distance-wise, that will help with the, I forgot your phrase, quality of life. The further you can put the bedroom windows from the interstate, the happier the person sleeping will be. And we're higher, definitely higher. Yeah, yeah, 35 feet at least above where that creek is going down there. Okay. Okay. All right, do we have any more questions? If not, thank you, gentlemen. Is there any commissioner comment or floors open for a motion? of what to recommend to the Planning Commission. I'll make a motion to postpone PLNMAR 26-8. Whoops, 1-7. Sorry, 26-17 Ball Homes, LLC, from an AR zone to medium density R4 and the accompanying development plan. Second. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Molly Davis. Second from Mr. Forrester. That's a motion to recommend postponement to the Planning Commission. If there's no discussion and you agree with that motion, Please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to our, I believe our last item on today's agenda is PLN MAR 2618. No. Oh, sorry. I'm still. All right. So still staying somewhat in the nearby vicinity, but our last item of the day is a request by Anderson Communities, and it's to rezone a property located at 4200 Todd's Road. This is a property, once again, that has been brought into the Irvis Service area. So this is a request to change it from its Ag Zoning, AR, to it should list the Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Business, B1. This is a sizable site. We're looking at over 120 acres of net acreage, And the framework for this is associated with a new complete neighborhood. So the development you're going to see today contains kind of a mixture of housing from single-family detached all the way up to multifamily residential, along with the incorporation of a commercial town center. With regards to the applicant's place type and development type, we are in agreement with the frameworks that they have chosen. The applicant plans to do some public outreach. They can fill you in on the anticipated meetings that they have kind of foreseen moving forward. But talking about the site itself, once again, we are on Todd's Road here with the subject property in its entirety shown in white. Once again, north of 120 acres, currently zoned AR. The portion to the left is showing where the existing boundary of the 1996 plan. So this was sort of a continuation further on out from the framework late in 96. But once again, it joins residential on its sides and then continues on to other areas within the urban service boundary to the right here. Area wise, once again, we have agricultural use. We have a very large pond here in central drainage area with associated floodplain. That is proposed to be kept with this request. It's being turned into an amenity. And then once again, as with both of these developments, we have the spine of the interstate kind of serving as a barrier and a divider between these uses. This, once again, is being located within a new complete neighborhood, envisioning kind of a commercial and residential framework to kind of operate moving forward. The applicant's choice and zones are recommended, as well as the densities that they're proposing them at. Here we have the Urban Growth Master Plan. So this portion, and I'll show, actually, I think I've got, yep, so zoom in. So this sub-area actually spans Todd's Road to the north all the way down to Canebrake in the flex space that we've got down here. the areas we were just talking about located here and then just off plan to the southeast zooming in a little bit closer you see the this portion of the sub area features high density town center along with high density residential as you go from that gradient of red to orange to yellow you're getting kind of drops in intensity from high medium to low density residential Also worth noting that the southern portion of the property contains the very remnants of the adjoining village center. So we have a couple of different commercial nodes that are planned out for the development. The subject property's boundaries, more or less, I've drawn kind of up with the piece here. So we have significant boulevard roadways that extend further throughout the site that are based on the plan, shown to kind of share the property line and then delve into the adjoining property. We have avenues with these darker white lines and then sort of neighborhood streets with the kind of less bright, smaller, white dotted lines. We have, once again, I took the applicant's development plan, overlaid the UGMP recommendations. You'll get a much clearer view in just a minute of the actual development plan itself. This is just to highlight kind of the two main pieces that we have outstanding, or two of the main pieces we have outstanding with this item. The roadway network that is shown with this purple line has been shifted, so it follows essentially the property line all the way down. So they've shifted the roadway, and she provides more information about that and the implications. And then they show development, a mixed-use development, all throughout the site. However, the tip here, just past this crossing of, once again, steep slopes in the stream, are showing an area that was highlighted for development as a village center, a high-density village center, and not showing any development down there. So filling in some of that information will kind of help guide what that process looks like as far as developing out the site and demonstrating conformance with the master plan. Overall, once again, we're seeing a development that in character really clings very tightly to what we projected for this area. So we've got low density, both within single-family detached, single-family attached, moving up to multifamily residential in the form of sort of six or eight plexes, all the way up to high-density residential with kind of a more typical apartment-style type development. those are combined with village center uses which once again contemplate a mixed use environment where you're talking about commercial along with higher density residential i'm ultimately culminating at town center shown closest to todd's road where you're getting kind of the most intense residential and commercial development so some of the items will be addressed when we talk about the development plan but we flagged a couple aspects as needing kind of further justification or discussion, the first being residential density. There are a large number of dwelling units being proposed on site, and let me pull my numbers here. Looks like 1,240 dwelling units are proposed across the entire development, which is a significant chunk. However, because of some changes they've made to the location of the town center, as well as not showing any development on that southernmost piece with the village center, that's about four acres of fairly intense and dense land that isn't shown as being developed or accounted for, they're slightly short of the 1,418 that are called for in this plan. So as we are talking through the plan, once again, the applicant should kind of review those criteria, talk about where those densities are coming from, get with staff if there's any questions on how those are being calculated. But ultimately, we want to make sure that the floor of these residential, the bare minimum is being met. They can always exceed, but we want to make sure that this is going to be sustainable and that the development in this area can sustain the infrastructure costs that are going to need to bring it online. Once again, there was the aforementioned village center development and where it was located. Shifts in the way the roadway network is functioning. There are some access management issues. Some of the lots, while kind of following kind of a new complete streets kind of framework, front on green space or other amenities don't actually have full road frontage. And so that kind of presents issues for emergency services, as well as some friction with our current subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. So some of the aspects of access management and the like will need to be sort of addressed as we go through this process. We do have an identified floodplain on the property. And I'll back up just to show that extent once again here. associated with this portion here there's mapped floodplain that ends in an abrupt line so we want to make sure that just all of the floodplain on the site is accounted for and then how we're treating and dealing with the environmentally sensitive areas is kind of appropriately being addressed and once again just some additional information on how the plan is meeting some of the policies of the comprehensive plan is information that was kind of omitted during the justification process So once again, staff is recommending postponement. There's some fit within the Urban Growth Master Plan that they kind of have to discuss. But overall, we find this is in agreement with a lot of what is being called for, a lot of residential being provided in a mixture of uses that is intentionally sort of implementing sort of this grid-like network. There are some points that we need to work through, and we would like the applicant to address the criterias and aspects that are shown on the plan there. So at this time, we are recommending postponement. but I would be happy to talk about any aspects of the zoning side of things. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any questions for Daniel on the zoning question? Forgive me if I'm missing it. Oh, there we go. We got one. This parcel, like the parcel over on 8th and Spoonsboro, the first one we heard, this parcel does directly, I guess it does adjoin an AR parcel, is that correct? on the right or to the east? Yeah, let me back us up here a little bit. Yes, the difference is, so we've got the subject property shown in white. So this line here is a property line to the adjoining parcel. This does adjoin an ag parcel. However, this red line is the urban service boundary. So it's an ag within the urban service boundary as opposed to ag when we were looking at, say, the southeast Athens-Boonsboro development for OK Gentry, where that is adjoining ag outside of the urban service boundary. So because it could potentially still be an ag use today, and I'm just asking because I cannot remember, do we have any even recommended buffering between the proposed use and the current ag use, even understanding that that subsequent parcel is within the urban service boundary? Well, the way that this development has sort of been set up is that the, and it'll be shown on the development plan, is they've got essentially a spot that road. They're constructing a half section of that roadway along that shared property line, so there is a buffer kind of baked into that. We can look in to see what the implications are for any other necessary buffering with ag, but I'm drawing a blank on it at the moment, especially within the urban service. Usually, you know, there's an understanding of if it's within the urban service boundary, it will probably redevelop in the future, and there should be some intentionality and thought given to what this form exists as in the interim if it comes online later, but most of our language is ag outside of the urban service boundary, so we can look at that and get back with you. Okay. Yes. Alright, Commissioner Molly Davis. I have a really stupid question. Those are my favorite. Okay. So, I wasn't here during the adoption of the urban growth. Well, maybe I was, but the process that happened a few years ago whereby the urban service boundary was expanded. And maybe I'm forgetting, but is having to do a zone change for each piece of land that was newly brought in, does that have to happen if, so I'm just kind of like, why are we seeing so many of these from AR to something? Yeah, yeah. So the, anytime that we have an expansion of the urban service boundary, the urban county government could theoretically have rezoned the parcels to match the plan. The approach that was taken in 1996, and it's slightly different today, was sort of evaluating on this on a piecemeal basis so that we could take a look at each piece as it came in. Each piece had to make a fresh justification. And it really spoke to the lack of, you know, we have a land use and regulating plan that thinks about the types of development that we want to occur, but what was not adopted was a final development plan that explicitly laid out the exact buildings and all of that so it's a part of it was giving flexibility part of it avoided you know having a rezoning conversation about 2 thousand acres at once but ultimately each and every property owner that wants to bring a piece in is going to rezone their piece each piece and show their development and how they meet this sort of overall system so the follow-on question would be since we are now looking at the various road networks and other things like that that were in the plan, did the consultant, I hope, take into consideration where they put things? How deeply did they look at the landscape to see where the various floodways and stream crossings and streams were back whenever that was done a few years ago? Yeah, so there's an element to all of this, right? As you kind of saw in the previous plan, those green spaces, the areas that we had marked for conservation and for not development, we're mapping to areas with identified steep slopes, streams, et cetera. The specifics of things like a particular roadway crossing of what, you know, the microengineering of that I can't speak to. But fortunately, the applicant on this particular scenario also includes a professional that was involved directly with that project. How wonderful. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any other questions on the zone change? If not, thank you, Daniel. We'll move on to Mr. Cheney. Yes. To address the agricultural question, if your project gets to a point where we are subdividing, there is a subdivision regulation that addresses urban development adjacent to an active agricultural use. So there's additional fencing required in that case, but it would take a while to get to that point. Thanks. Look, just seeing what I got here. Okay, so the associated development plan for the Germont property, this is kind of the overall plan. It's kind of hard to see at this scale. But kind of going back to probably way too far for me to go. There we go. So where Daniel's overlaid the urban growth master plan over the development plan, so our development plan boundary is roughly this area, as you can kind of see with what's underneath. So we've got the town center at the top, and then the density gradually decreases. So we get to the stream here, and then we get into the extent of the village center, to the south. So I'm going to come back to the plan and without all the fancy color, maybe try to explain that a little bit. So we've got the town center adjacent to Todd's Road in this area. And then there's an avenue or boulevard that comes all the way down and it tees into, as Daniel mentioned, there's this half road boulevard that goes along the eastern property boundary and it ends just at the flood plain at the southern end and then as he had mentioned earlier this tip at the bottom isn't showing any development on this plan currently but this is where that village the northern part of that village center the the pink area on the previous image is here so the village center is actually shown roughly down here and extends up this way where the town center comes off of Todd's Road and extends and then the density gradually decreases as you go south. So on this overall plan again we've got the two kind of main roads that go through the development with the connecting roadways. They're showing you know again town center so there's commercial unmixed use in this area up here and then there's townhomes and single family along the the this parkland in the middle they're calling it a parkland but it's it's They indicated that this will be HOA open space, green space. There's multifamily in this area, multifamily in this area, senior cottages here, and then kind of mixed all through our townhome single family as you go through the development. So a little bit of a blow up here again. Then this is the town center adjacent to Todd's Road, the multifamily, single family, and again, the townhomes. And then, again, senior cottages in this area, more multifamily. And this is that pond where Daniel had mentioned that the floodplain kind of abruptly cuts off there. When there's a mapped floodplain, sometimes at their last station, they just draw a straight line across the drainage. And we know that floodplains don't just follow a straight line. So that was where we may want some more information on what the actual realistic floodplain would be. But there's the pond that they're using for mainly as an amenity, but it's also their stormwater management, a big portion of their stormwater management, and then, you know, obviously the water drains offsite there. One of the big concerns that came up during previous meetings we had and during tech, there are some of the townhomes front the green space and are accessed by an alley and not a public or private street. So we know that they'll need a finding for access easement as sole access for the townhomes for no street frontage. I don't want to steal any of Dick's thunder or put any words in his mouth, but we have a little bit of a timing situation with the adoption of the complete streets, changes to the land subdivision regulations, where under our current regulations, they would need waivers to build the plan as shown. But there's this anticipation that once complete streets are adopted and the land subdivision regulations are updated, that they may not need those waivers. I can let Dick go into more detail about the specifics of those, but that's something that we've been discussing at Tech Committee and Subdivision Committee this morning. There's the requirement that avenues and boulevards have roundabout intersections, and so that's something that's come up in our discussions that they'll either need that or waivers, and that's part of the Urban Growth Master Plan. That's not specifically related to our current regulations. Um, and then let's see, I'm trying to think if I'm, let me look at my notes and make sure I'm not. Oh, and then, okay. So the other discussion, um, and Daniel briefly touched on this, this, uh, proposed roadway here, they're proposing it as a half road, which would be two lanes, um, with the intent that it would eventually be a four lane, uh, roadway. but it would function as a two-lane roadway until the adjacent property is developed and the other half is built. So we have some questions about how roundabouts would work, how that would be incorporated into that, ultimately how the road would look when it's completely built, but how it would function until the other half was built without the roundabout, or how you would incorporate roundabouts. and then the other thing that daniel mentioned as well is is that roughly in this area on the regulating plan it shows the road deviating onto the adjacent property and not following the property boundary and then also it does currently it's shown to end here and not connect into the property to the south and so we we know we want the connectivity there and it's a similar issue It's the crossing of the floodplain in the stream, kind of that cost and that just the planning for that is a consideration. And again, I can I'll let the applicant talk a little bit more about that. But yeah, again, one of the big things we wanted to make sure that there's proper fire access. So you can see here these these townhomes front the greenway green space. but they're accessed off of the right-of-way by an alley. And so there's a concern about the turn radius, where there's sort of a 90-degree turn there from one alley onto the other, but then also that the width of the alley itself would need to be 20 feet for fire access. And alleys typically haven't been shown that wide. So, again, with complete streets, that may be addressed. but under our current regulations we don't have anything that specifies an alley cross-section. So there's just some questions about that and, again, the timing with the complete streets and what waivers might be necessary for a preliminary versus a final development plan and then just, again, just kind of ensuring that we're going to meet the – or that we're going to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the development. So with that, I'll open it up to you all if you have any questions. Do we have any questions for Chris at this time on the development plan? Sure. Thank you, Chair. Chris, I have a couple of questions, and perhaps the applicant can answer them. But did staff have any concern about the playground's location being so far from other land type, I mean far on the edge there? To me, it seems like it's misplaced considering all of the apartments to the west. Yeah, it's a little bit difficult to kind of pick out with all this detail going on, but there are kind of interspersed throughout a couple of different places that feature sort of active and passive recreation. So associated with the apartments kind of near the north end of that parkland. Oh, some moving the screen on me. Basically, interspersed throughout are a couple of different amenity areas, dog parks, clubhouses, other recreational stuff. So they are kind of interspersed throughout the site, but the applicant could give you some more information on kind of their design choices. I see a dog park and a playground, and then they're all along the one edge. Eastern edge. Yeah. We did talk to the Division of Parks and Recreation as well, and they indicated a concern about not – I suppose it did have something to do with the density always, you know, all kind of being to the west or left side of the plan and then these amenities being to the right. But they also mentioned concern about putting an active playground on the most active roadway being built. So I think that's the boulevard, which we would anticipate had the most traffic. And so putting a playground adjacent, directly adjacent to the boulevard. Also, they were concerned about that, especially if it was going to be a public park. Right. Okay. Next question. Could you elaborate or just clarify? You said that all intersections need to be roundabouts. Do you mean every single one? No, I believe it's where avenues and boulevards meet avenues and boulevards, but not where they intersect local streets or alleys. So an avenue would be the long spine, I guess, or a boule... How many roundabouts would you say there should be on there, but there aren't there, I guess? Or it doesn't matter what... You're just saying there should be more roundabouts. Okay, got it. The next question... Yeah. Sorry. What about where the new pump station is located? Is that... They indicated that it would be temporary, and it would be in this general area. Yeah, I see where it's labeled on there. Yeah, and they may be able to speak more specifically to that. But the topography, the land from Todd's Road drops down to the stream. And so this is really, or well, actually to the stream. So this is kind of their low point. So they've pumped back up to Todd's Road. And then I guess the other thing, the question I have is, while there are some townhomes depicted on the single-family properties, this doesn't depict the full build-out. It just shows a few things being built, which is a great way to see, like, what the land use is. But there would be townhouses throughout there, not just the ones that are shown. My understanding was the tan kind of brown units were townhomes. The pale yellow was indicative of a detached single-family home. So they're showing the lot as opposed to a small building on that. And the blue was the multifamily, and then some orange, maybe four or eight plexes. Right. What's in the far northeast corner that's like the tiny, tiny little squares? Are those more retail? Are those the eight plexes? Six plexes. Ah, six plexes. And then the red-pink shading was more commercial slash mixed use. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Okay, do we have any additional questions for Chris at this time? Seeing none, thank you Chris. Okay, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. Murphy representing Anderson Communities, and I have Samantha Castro with us from Tunnel Spangler Walsh, TSW, and Tony Barrett Partners, our landscape architect. Samantha's our planner, and both Tony and Samantha have collaborated on our development plan for you. We're very proud to present this plan to you because I think we have a plan before you where we're in basic agreement with the urban growth management plan. I was talking to Sam a minute ago, and I said, I think we're over 90% in agreement on things. We just have to work out the last 5% or 10% of the things, which is what we've been discussing. I don't want people to judge the amount of time you talk about something on how much you agree with it, because I think we're almost there in total agreement. and we, but it does deserve time to deal with the last percentage of things that we need to talk about. We're showing a plan, as I said, we have the boulevard going through the project, which is, this is the boulevard, this is the east side, north is over here now on this plan, but this is the boulevard going through. and that was planned under the plan the property to the east up here is inside the new urban service boundary that's owned by the Clark family and as this was being planned and worked out through the process the last two or three years this boulevard was intentionally located on the property line and that was so neither property owner could hold the other hostage in other words put the boulevard there They can each build half of it. They can have it if Dennis wants to go first, which it looks like he is. He can build his side of it. It will function as a full roadway. It's wide enough on one side. It's functioned for a two-lane roadway, two ways. And it will not prevent him from proceeding, nor will it hold up Clark's from proceeding. When they come in, they can build the other two lanes on their side on it. So part of that was to avoid having a privilege fear of a squabble over who pays for it. It's half on each. And since it's in the middle of the area brought in, it's appropriately located. Sam will talk a little bit more about where we go off, where the plan showed it going off the property line. We have a mix of housing in here, as staff has mentioned. We have single-family townhomes, six-plexes, apartment buildings, all the mix that is proposed for the urban growth area. We have green space in here. It's been discussed. I'm not sure we're totally decided on where. We have green space going through the spine there, over here, the big set over here. I'm not sure we're finally decided on where individual playgrounds or whatever will be. We have a lot of space for them here, though. And this is in tradition of what Dennis has done in Townley and in Great Acres of building complete communities with various residential choices and commercial choices, making sure things are walkable in the community. We have a couple things about the regs I just wanted to mention. We're going to probably be needing to get some waivers from you all. Oops, wrong way. Well, where you had the slides about the comp plan. Pardon? Keep going. Keep going back. There we are. Okay. Okay. Yeah. One more. Okay. There we go. Right up there where we have the townhomes. This is out of our comprehensive plan, or your comprehensive plan, where we have the townhomes fronting Greenway. we want to do something like that along our greenway. Ironically, to do that, we're going to have to ask a waiver of the regulations in order to do something that's planned in the comprehensive plan. So I had proposed maybe let's defer the waivers until the final development plan stage, until the complete streets manual is adopted and that sort of thing. Now, we may need to go ahead with those. That's what we're talking to the staff about. So a lot of these waivers we're going to be asking for are things that maybe wouldn't need to be waived if we had all the regulations in effect. But as I said, it's a little ironic that we do have to get waivers to build something that is a hallmark of the new comprehensive plan. I'm going to hush up here, but I asked Samantha to come and give you a rundown on this plan, because this is almost in final form, not quite, but we wanted to show you what we're doing here. So I'll turn this over to Samantha. Good afternoon, everybody. So like I said this morning, this has been a really interesting day for me because getting to work on that urban growth master plan and then actually seeing what it looks like when you go to put that into design from different designers has been a really interesting test of how these things get done. I think that we are really trying to speak to the vision of what was laid out in the Urban Growth Master Plan. And a lot of, you know, the list looks long there of sort of the staff's things that they need us to change. And like Dick was saying, a lot of this has to do with the fact that we are really basing this, we base the design on the assumption that Complete Streets would be adopted. And, of course, it's probably, what, a couple months out from that. But some of the big moves that come out of Complete Streets are the use of alleys. And that allows you to do things like front housing on to open space rather than on a public street, which is what our current regs require, and using that alley instead. So one thing that I think we're most proud of in this plan is the variety of housing types. It was really important for us to have them really mixed in across the site. so we've got everything from small lot single family townhomes six plexes flats over garages those are you can't quite see them but they're they're sort of along the edge of the apartments so those would be garages that have you know like a studio apartment above them senior cottage courts so this this back area is is meant as Dennis is kind of interested in trying out the senior cottage model, because we think that there's a space for it. And then, of course, your more traditional multifamily. Like was said, we think that this is going to net us at least 1,200 dwelling units, which is a significant chunk, which is why this plan is so enormous, and also why it's a little bit hard to talk about and hit all the high points, because this is really the size of a town in most other parts of Kentucky. We're still working with staff. We met with them yesterday, and we're kind of working out how exactly we calculate those densities because we put them in the Arbor Growth Master Plan and then trying to figure out how exactly you run those numbers for that has been interesting. When we did our rough calculations sort of across the entire site, we think that we're getting around 18 dwelling units per acre. So that's well above that sort of minimum threshold that we set of seven dwelling units per acre. Now I think that we need to sort of look at how some of those areas, especially the area up here that's the center, um you know how we might need to dense it think about some more density there um and then like they pointed out we're not showing any we weren't originally showing anything here in the in the southern piece and a lot of that had to do with the fact that that is really a small portion of that bigger um what is it uh bigger village center and so we were worried that if we just built a small, very intense part of that, you've essentially put a bunch of higher intensity mixed use on this weird little island. But we are not opposed to showing what that future could look like, just understanding that it would be a phase that is much further out and really probably only comes about when we can connect to that road on down to Cane Break or when the Clark property really starts to redevelop if they go that direction. We really based this whole design on this beautiful pond amenity that is out there. It's a natural stormwater detention area. And having been out on the site several times, it's got some really nice features to it already. and so Dennis really wanted to play off of that. So there is a stream here, so we are crossing a stream. And this is also sort of the low point of the site, so that's where, again, that's where the temporary pump station will be located. So even though we will probably phase it in terms of starting at this top corner, we'll need to go ahead and get back to that pump station almost immediately. A few other things to note. So we are going to be hitting concurrency, you know, pretty much right away. We'll build the clubhouse as if it is built for commercial standards. And so that will meet the concurrency on the first bit up until, you know, we've got enough rooftops out here for Dennis to start building some of that commercial piece. Very similar to what was done in Townley. you sort of have to wait until you get some density before you can start to look at that commercial, unless you subsidize it. Commissioner Davis, I thought your question about the playgrounds was really good, and I agree with Dick. This is not how I, as an urban designer, would design that center area. It needs a lot, like, there's just a lot more work to be done for what that pond would look like, and then the open space around it. And I think that there's opportunity in this northern section, especially up by the clubhouse, and then in all of these little parklets that are occurring everywhere to start to think about those small moments where you can get, you know, playgrounds, mini dog parks, you know, all of those things that we want to see dispersed throughout. Because I do agree, right now a lot of that is showing up on the eastern side, but we're envisioning it goes throughout. We also have, you know, we're showing parking based on sort of Dennis' best practices and what he sees in his developments everywhere else, and we are trying to, you know, keep those to the interior of blocks and tucked in behind things. You saw that there's a concern about the length of this span of roadway. obviously that waiver will just be about the fact that you know we're not wanting to cross that um that pond area with with a road um let's see um in terms of connectivity um it wasn't necessarily asked of us or um yeah it wasn't asked right off the bat but we went ahead and stubbed out a street here to the adjacent property. You know, whether they ever choose to connect it or not, we didn't want to go back to the things that we've done in the past that haven't worked. Similarly, obviously, a lot of these streets are coming along and teeing into this half boulevard with the idea that eventually we could connect across the roadway. That boulevard, like we said, is a half section. The boulevard is envisioned to be divided with a center-planted median. So right now we're thinking about building half of it, but it would still function like a local street. We're going to work with traffic and engineering to figure out, you know, there would be a roundabout there and likely a roundabout up here somewhere and another one, you know, internal. But figuring out how exactly, you know, you can't build a half a round that doesn't work would really confuse people. So we have to figure out what that looks like in the long run. I believe that that is mostly it. We're very excited about this. And we think that it is going to be a project that will really help to showcase, you know, just what the vision was for walkability and housing variety and density out in these urban growth areas and really sort of set a gold standard. Okay. That's all we have. Thank you very much. All right. All right. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Molly Davis. I'd like to ask a question about the alleys, because I want to make sure that what I'm looking at on here is what we're talking about. I think the alleys are the very thin kind of beige lines that are in front of houses, mostly fronting the green area. Yeah, we kind of use them throughout. So anytime you see these, yeah, it's the thin lines that aren't lined with trees. Not to be confused with the sidewalks. Is that a sidewalk or is that a... At the top of the open space. Just above the lake. There's a... Oh, that's a... That's a trail. Yeah, that's a pedestrian trail. So that's a trail. So are you considering the areas between the single family to be alleys? Yes. Okay. So I think the problem is that what Mr. Murphy... Here. But what Mr. Murphy showed referring to alleys had green space in there. Oh, no. Yeah. So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, if you didn't have a row of houses, you could have the alleys facing green space. No, what Dick was showing was these sort of internal, where you see the townhouses fronting onto sort of like these little center park things, Those are also not, you'd need a waiver for those based on our current standards because you have to, right now our current standards say that you have to be fronting, your front door has to be on a road. So that's what Dick was showing in here and like in for these cottage courts. Those would be facing on small green spaces. And then we also have, you know, that same requirement or stipulation applies here. Just think of it halfway where, you know, you can't have these, currently you can't have these single family homes that front onto a park space because they're not, they don't have their front door on a street. Okay. But that complete streets will be finished in, what do we think, two or three months? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, and it's still blue. So I guess the other thing is where the, and it's this map or development plan, which shows that there is a stream with a blue line and quite a bit of stuff, and then the road comes, and then you have all green. Is that road going to be a bridge? Is it going to be somehow allow for the water to flow under? I guess, yeah, from each, yeah, how does that, how does that water move south? Yes, very much. The idea that it's a bridge and the stream remains intact. Okay. Yes. Okay, very good. Thank you. You know, I think pretty feature. Have you ever been to the Floyd's Fork sewer, whatchamacallit? Parklands? Yes. Yes, that's what a place I designed. Yeah, so you can make them so that they look good and sturdy and robust. Yeah, yeah. okay do we have any of just mr. Mickler yeah on that same roadway just a question because we as a commission had a lot of conversations wanting to make sure that there was an ability to connect this area down to Athens which is why we added the cane break area even though it wasn't recommended in the initial committee. And so I'm glad to see that sort of connection stub out. I did want to ask because its location is on that property boundary and envisioning that this is also a future boulevard with that other side. and going a little bit on the other side, it looks like that creek kind of starts taking a turn there and wondering if that placement of that future basically bridge over that is an appropriate place or if that maybe needs to deviate a little bit from that property boundary in the future to make sure that that connection when it's made is in the most feasible location. Yeah, and I think we'll need to look at that because I agree. I think right here it's starting to widen out as it takes its turn coming this way. So yeah, we'll need to look at if we might need to jog the road in a little bit here. Obviously on the original urban growth master plan, it really started to deviate over this way. And that was really so you only had to cross that stream that one time. But our concern was that if we didn't build the road along the length of our property, it might not ever get connected if the Clarks didn't build their piece. And so we didn't want to be the hindrance to not be able to get that connection. So, you know, we've talked to them a bit about the privilege fee because that's two major, well, two stream crossings. I don't want to say major because they're not enormous streams out there, but they're still stream crossings. Especially for, you know, it's not a ton of bang for your buck just for this little piece back here. but it is if you think about what that village center could be someday. Sure. Speaking of village center, why did you all decide to put the, I guess if you call the retail area the village center, why is it fronted on Todd's Road and not more internally located so that everything kind of emanates from that? That really has to do with market forces and visibility. it's really hard to convince commercial to go deeply internal to a site. Even in a place like Norton Commons where they're really successful, they've had to subsidize a lot of those businesses that are inside the site that are hidden from view. And, you know, we'll be challenged anyway. Go ahead. I want to point out that this center right here, town center, is on your plan on Todd's Road. So we're locating it on Todd's Road in agreement with the Urban Growth Master Plan there. This is a town center. The back is a village center, which is a smaller commercial area out there. So the town center is not going to just serve us. It will serve the area, Todd's Road area out here as well. That's another reason it's up on the Todd's Road. I totally lost it here. I'm sorry about that. You're good, Mr. Murphy. Okay. If we don't have any more questions for the applicant, personally, I have really enjoyed studying this. I think this is extremely thoughtful, and it is rewarding to see something come to fruition in a real sort of way. So thank you for that. If we have nothing else for the applicant, The floor is open for discussion. A motion? Mr. Forrester? Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion on postponement for PLN MER 26-18 as presented by staff. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Second from Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Is there any discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. McClure. Oh, you were just voting early and often. Okay. If you're in favor of that motion to recommend postponement to the Planning Commission, please raise your right hand. Thank you. That is unanimous. Okay. I believe that is the last item on our agenda today. So without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.