# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - January 28, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · January 28, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1198 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1198?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-01-28 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 4,734 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on January 28, 2010, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Carolyn Richardson presiding. The meeting addressed 5 agenda items, including the approval of minutes, a zoning map amendment, requested variances, and a development plan. Over the course of the meeting, 4 motions and votes were taken and 1 public comment was heard. The Commission approved the Zoning Map Amendment, Requested Variances, and Development Plan for RAS LAND, INC. and RAS PROPERTY, while postponing action on the Zoning Map Amendment for WWM, LLC; AUSBROOK POLO, LLC & POLO I, LLC. ## Attendance Nine of the eleven Commission members were present at the January 28, 2010 meeting, with two members absent. **Present:** - Carolyn Richardson - Patrick Brewer - Marie Copeland *(arrived late)* - Mike Cravens - Ed Holmes - Mike Owens - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Joan Whitman - William Wilson **Absent:** - Derek Paulsen - Frank Penn Marie Copeland was noted as present but arrived late to the meeting. Derek Paulsen and Frank Penn were the two members who did not attend. ## Votes and Decisions Four votes were taken during the January 28, 2010 Commission meeting. - **MAR 2009-17 — Postponement (WWM, LLC; Ausbrook Polo, LLC & Polo I, LLC):** Lynn Roche-Phillips moved to postpone the zoning map amendment for WWM, LLC; Ausbrook Polo, LLC & Polo I, LLC, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed 8–0 by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:07:15] - **MARV 2009-14 — Zoning Map Amendment (RAS Land, Inc.):** Ed Holmes moved to approve the zoning map amendment for RAS Land, Inc., seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed 9–0 by voice vote. Voting in favor were Carolyn Richardson, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Joan Whitman, and William Wilson. [timestamp: 0:36:49] - **Variances (RAS Land, Inc.):** Mike Owens moved to approve the requested variances for RAS Land, Inc., seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed 9–0 by voice vote, subject to four conditions as listed on the agenda. Voting in favor were Carolyn Richardson, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Joan Whitman, and William Wilson. [timestamp: 0:37:23] - **ZDP 2009-76 — Development Plan (RAS Property):** Joan Whitman moved to approve the development plan for RAS Property, seconded by Mike Owens. The motion passed 9–0 by voice vote, subject to nine conditions as listed in the staff's revised recommendation. Voting in favor were Carolyn Richardson, Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Joan Whitman, and William Wilson. [timestamp: 0:38:37] No nays or abstentions were recorded on any of the four votes. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period. - **Peter Cassidy**, president of the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the RAS LAND, INC. zoning amendment. Cassidy expressed the neighborhood association's approval of the proposed amendment, noting appreciation for the petitioner's cooperation with the neighborhood throughout the process. [timestamp: 35:08] No additional public comments were recorded for this meeting. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 06:04] The Commission reviewed the minutes from its December 17, 2009 meeting. Carolyn Richardson addressed this agenda item, and the minutes were considered without any additions or corrections being raised. The Commission approved the minutes as presented. ## Postponement of Zoning Map Amendment for WWM, LLC; AUSBROOK POLO, LLC & POLO I, LLC **Agenda Item: MAR 2009-17** [timestamp: 07:15] The Commission took up the matter of a zoning map amendment request associated with properties located at 2950 Winchester Road, submitted on behalf of WWM, LLC; Ausbrook Polo, LLC; and Polo I, LLC. - **Key Speaker:** Rena Wiseman addressed the Commission regarding this item. - The discussion centered on a request to postpone consideration of the zoning map amendment for a period of one month, rather than proceeding with a substantive review of the amendment at this meeting. - No detailed debate on the merits of the underlying zoning map amendment itself was recorded as part of this agenda item, as the focus was solely on the procedural question of postponement. **Outcome:** The Commission approved the one-month postponement of the zoning map amendment request for the properties at 2950 Winchester Road. The item will return before the Commission at a subsequent meeting following the postponement period. ## Zoning Map Amendment for RAS LAND, INC. **Agenda Item:** MARV 2009-14 [timestamp: 36:49] The Commission took up a zoning map amendment request submitted by RAS LAND, INC. for property located at 333 South Upper Street. The proposal sought to rezone the parcel from a Two-Family Residential (R-2) zone to a High Rise Apartment (R-5) zone. - **Key Speaker:** Traci Wade presented on this agenda item. - **Outcome:** The Commission approved the zoning map amendment. The amendment, designated MARV 2009-14, was considered as an ordinance. The rezoning would allow for higher-density residential development at the 333 South Upper Street property, transitioning it from a designation permitting two-family residential use to one that accommodates high-rise apartment development under the R-5 classification. ## Requested Variances for RAS LAND, INC. [timestamp: 37:23] The Commission took up the matter of requested variances for RAS LAND, INC. concerning the property located at 333 South Upper Street. Jimmy Emmons was the key speaker during this agenda item. The discussion centered on a proposal to reduce the required front yard setbacks for the subject property. The Commission considered the variance request and ultimately voted to approve the reductions to the front yard setback requirements as presented. The item was approved by the Commission. ## Development Plan for RAS PROPERTY **Agenda Item:** ZDP 2009-76 [timestamp: 38:37] The Commission took up agenda item ZDP 2009-76, a proposed ordinance concerning the preliminary development plan for the RAS Property. Tom Martin was the key speaker presenting and discussing this item before the Commission. The Commission considered the preliminary development plan as submitted, with discussion focused on the proposal and any applicable conditions that would govern the development. The item was brought forward as an ordinance, indicating a formal regulatory action was required to authorize the development plan. Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission approved the preliminary development plan for the RAS Property, subject to conditions. The approval with conditions reflects the Commission's standard practice of ensuring that development proceeds in accordance with specific requirements established during the review process. --- ## Decisions - **MAR 2009-17** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of zoning map amendment for WWM, LLC; AUSBROOK POLO, LLC & POLO I, LLC - **MARV 2009-14** — passed (9-0): Approval of zoning map amendment for RAS LAND, INC. - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of requested variances for RAS LAND, INC. - **ZDP 2009-76** — passed (9-0): Approval of development plan for RAS PROPERTY --- ## Full transcript ...all the meeting to order, please. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Uh, first item on our agenda today is the, um, are the minutes from the December 17th, uh, 2009 meeting. Um, are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, do I hear a motion that we approve? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals today? Madam Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rena Wiseman. I have an item on page three. It's a zone change, MAR 2009-17. We would request a one-month postponement of that, and I think that's February 25th. Mr. Salley, is that correct? Yes, Madam Chair. That is the correct date. Yup, tha- one month. What, you said Mar- uh ... It'd be your February 25th. 25th, okay. Yes. Do I hear a motion to postpone, uh, MAR 2009-17, Osborn Polo and, uh, Polo LLC? Madam Chair, I'd like to move for one-month postponement to February 25th, MAR 2009-17. Second. Motion made and second. All in favor? Opposed? Thank you. Motion's postponed. Thank you. Fritz, do we have any, um, do we have any items that can be, uh, uh, done as abbreviated public hearings? Um, eh, before we get to that, Madam Chair, one other item I want to indicate will not be discussed by the commission today, and that's on page four of the agenda, the commission item that the staff had, uh, scheduled on the consideration of the resolution regarding the World Equestrian Games that, uh, was discussed at your work session. Some, uh, key representatives of the mayor's office and the foundation could not be here today, and they have asked to communicate to us that they would request that they w- that this be docketed at one of your two meetings in February. This is not a noticed item, so there doesn't need to be any official action on your part to postpone it or any kind of, uh, notification. But once they are able to check schedules and find out which of those two dates they can be here, staff will re-docket that, and we will, uh, uh, hopefully be able to tell you that at your committee meeting next week. But we just wanted to indicate that, that, in case there was anyone here interested in that, that it will not be discussed today. All right, thank you very much. Are there, uh, any abbreviated public hearings for today? Madam Chair, I believe the only, uh, item remaining probably can be dealt with in abbreviated fashion, scanning the audience. We'll be prepared to begin in just a moment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the commission, um, as Mr. Salley pointed out, this is MARV 2009-14, a request by RAS Land Incorporate, or I'm sorry, LLC. This is an amended application, and can be found on page one of your agenda today at the bottom, and it does continue to the, um, second page. In addition, the addendum to our agenda includes a variance, uh, staff group recommendation, um, that is part of this, uh, application as well. This one is, is an amended zone change request from an R-2 Zone to the High-Rise Apartment R-5 Zone, and it's for property located at 333, um, 333 South Upper Street. The subject property, i- actually, before I get started into the, the details of the application, we do have one letter, um, of support for the application, um, from the South Hill Group, and that was actually when it, they were requesting Mixed Use 1, so I will go ahead and give that to you all and give a copy to, um, Stephanie for the record. Sorry. The subject property is located at 333 South Upper Street, and that is located within the South Hill Historic District, so it, in addition to being zoned R-2, it also has an H-1 overlay, uh, as does a majority of the, um, residential area between South Limestone and Broadway. The, um, subject property is located with, on the north side of South Upper Street and has, um, frontage on South Upper, as well as frontage along Mack's Alley, which borders the property to the northeast and northwest, so the subject property has right of way, um, or streets located on three sides of it. Uh, for reference, the Methodist Church is to the north, and it's zoned B-2b, and the majority of the other properties in the vicinity are zoned R-2, and that was a result of a down-zoning in 1997 that was requested by the neighborhood. Uh, the subject property was part of that down-zoning and was down-zoned from an R-4 Zone at that time to the current R-2 zoning. Um, the neighborhood does have a mixture of residential densities, um, some single family and also apartment units in this area. The, um, applicant is requesting the R-5 Zone in order to develop or, uh, re-develop the property. They will propose to keep the existing structure. That's, that's there and these photos may be difficult to see without dimming the lights. Let me approach or use the, uh, my pointer to show you the property. The subject property includes this, um, structure here. It is a historic structure that w- has been used for a number of different things including a dormitory, um, part of a school, single family residence, as well as apartments most recently. And it is, again, adjacent to Max Alley and then borders or has frontage along, um, South Upper Street ands, um, is configured in s- an L shape. There's a small addition on the rear of the property, um, here, and that is proposed to be removed and replaced with a larger, um, unit, residential unit, and then they propose to use the rest of the building for six residential units for a total of seven units on the property, which is a density of 28, uh, residential units per acre, averaged. The, um... I lost my train of thought, I'm sorry. The, um, petitioner is also proposing to keep the historic structure which, um, would be in a, in accord with the, um, historic preservations, um, desires for the neighborhood as well as the neighborhood itself. The applicant is proposing conditional zoning restrictions with their application today and those would be to limit the use of the property to, as a principal use, strictly multifamily residential and then to limit the accessory and conditional uses. Um, the accessory uses they're proposing to limit to, um, just a few basic uses including like tennis courts and swimming pools, satellite dishes... I lost my... Uh, home offices and parking and living quarters. And then in terms of conditional uses the applicant is proposing to limit those uses to what's allowed in an R1A zone which includes like daycares, um, churches, kind of a very standard and, and minimal list of conditional zoning or conditional uses. The, uh, applicant is also requesting that, uh, there be, uh, two dimensional variances for the property and there'll be a separate staff presentation regarding the dima- the variances by Mr. Emmons following the development plan. The existing use of the building, currently it's vacant because of a, um, fire in 2005 and the applicant did, or i- in doing research the staff did find that there were 10 units present, um, and legally allowed before the fire. Uh, so the applicant is proposing a density lower than what currently would be able to be replaced on that property. Uh, the comprehensive plan for this location recommends a... I'm just gonna... Recommends the downtown master plan land use and for reference, the downtown master plan area, um, encompasses most of downtown and then a little bit further beyond that. And as a closeup on the overhead, uh, it i- it, this land use category expand or covers the, the downtown core as well as, um, the area of the neighborhood up to West Maxwell Street and does include all of the area along South Upper. The downtown master plan land use points the, um, points to the downtown master plan which in this, um, in this case or in all cases it, it states that the, um, master plan either be implemented for the comprehensive plan and if it can't or is not implemented, that the Planning Commission should consider, um, previous comprehensive plan recommendations for a specific site or any other current relevant information. In this case, the 2001 comprehensive plan did recommend medium residential, medium density residential for this location which is, um, defined as five to 10 dwelling units per acre and the master plan recommends a residential neighborhood area for this property, um, and all of the South Upper corridor and also states, makes a statement about these well-established neighborhoods, um, needing to be preserved and having only selective infill and redevelopment and, um, and then also emphasizes that the historic neighborhoods be preserved and vacant lots be, be infilled. Uh, so in consideration of those two recommendations for residential, the applicant's proposal for an R5 zone is, um, considered by the staff to be in substantial agreement with the comprehensive plan and the staff did consider a few other things in looking at our recommendation. Uh, first that the, the building is non-conforming and that the s- the l- lot is also, um, non-conforming. The, and that the 10-unit apartment building was previously allowed, um, and then this property had been downzoned since then. Also that the, um, LFUCG housing market study has recommended or pointed out that attached housing, which would be condominiums or townhouses, um, is very... has an important and growing niche in Lexington and that there remains a high demand for this type of housing, um, especially within New Circle Road. The, um... That was important to the staff in light of the residential recommendation and the density not being in line with the 2000- ... one Comprehensive Plan. That is, the applicant's proposing a higher density than recommended by the previous plan. Uh, the staff also considered, um, the fact that they're, are mai- are maintaining a high density land use here that, um, is in, is consistent with some of the rest of the neighborhood, and that w- in the staff's opinion, wouldn't, um, adversely affect the neighborhood. So, the staff presented, uh, this amended application to the zoning committee, and the zoning committee agreed with our recommendation of approval of the zone change to R-5. And, um, there are five reasons listed on your agenda and in the staff report for, um, recommending this a- this zone change be approved, because it is in substantial agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. And those are laid out on your agenda. I'd be happy to go- go into them in more detail if you'd like. Um, generally, uh, the staff was supportive, especially given the fact that the applicant was willing to conditionally zone their property. And those restrictions are, um, proposed as part of the, um, ap- the staff's recommendation as well, to, uh, to appropriately, um, restrict the property, to keep in line with the historic neighborhood, and preserve the, um, well, preserve the neighborhood. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Other questions? Th- uh, I should've announced earlier, the computer is, uh, is ill today. So that's why I didn't call for a vote by, um, uh, on the computer a few minutes ago. So, yes, uh... Thank you. Uh, Tracy, I know what the applicant is planning is just, you know, in simple terms, remodeling, going to multi- a multifamily house, um, units. The R-5, um, zone would, in a normal situation, would allow a high-rise type that would allow offices on the first couple of floors, and then apartments or residential units above. With this conditional zoning restriction, that possibility goes away? That's right. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Tom? Madam Chairman, members of the commission, at the bottom of page two of your agenda and the top of page three, you will find ZDP-2009-76 RAS Property. It is the Preliminary Development Plan associated with the property. You also find, hopefully at your seat, a white page, a handout stating Revised Staff Conditions as well. The development plan, as proposed with this zone change, as Ms. Wade explained, is located on Upper Street. Here's its frontage. Mack Alley, here and here to the side and rear of the property. This is the parking proposed for the development. There are 11 spaces. That is the required number of spaces, and they are able to meet that requirement on site. The footprint you see here is just over 3,800 square feet. There is a total of 9,200 square feet proposed in the building, with a, a two-and-a-half story building, 35 feet in height. Uh, this is a courtyard area and open space for the development as well. Y- you can see from your revised condition that the applicant brought in a new plan, and he addressed many of your conditions. We have the standard conditions and the standard sign-offs. The new plan did meet some of our cleanup conditions. One aspect it's important to note that by correcting this to reflect the Preliminary Development Plan status, it also dictates that number six, the Urban Forester's Approval of a Tree Inventory Plan is what is the appropriate level on this plan. Staff had originally expressed to the committees and to the applicant some concern about the tree canopy information. Uh, we have conferred with the applicant. We have conferred with the, uh, Urban County Forester, who made a site visit. Now, we're very comfortable with the information now as presented that's alleviated staff concern in that regard. I would point out again that under item seven, this is a Preliminary Development Plan. At the time of the final development plan, they w- will require BOAR approval of this proposal. Uh, it is an H-1 area. Uh, there is a landscape buffer that we've asked that they clearly denote along the R-2 boundary with the neighborhood. And then last, we have on your Revised Staff Conditions, to denote the conditional zoning restrictions. And with that, if there's any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer 'em. Thank you, Tom. Are there questions? Marie? When you have high-rise apartment zoning, how high, how many stories high can you do in that zone? It would be dictated by the size of the zone, and the setbacks, and meeting the, uh, FAR requirements, and also meeting the setback requirements. Well, at this site, what's the maximum? This, this site is maxxed out roughly, and that is why they're also asking for a variance, because without the R-5 and the variance, they would have trouble- ... meeting those requirements on this zone, and that's what Mr. Emmons is going to, uh, address with the variance request. Okay. Are there other questions? Mike. Um, um, I know Jimmy Emmons is getting ready to get to the variance. Uh, if we're gonna approve this, do we need something noted as far as the variance that's going to be approved or hopefully- I- i- if you approve that variance, that would be denoted on the plan, which- Okay. ... again, would explain why they can build what they're requesting to build, the way they're requesting it. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Jimmy. Before I begin, uh, I believe I could answer some of your questions real quickly. Um, on the, um, recommendation for the variance, it is noted, um, item number three, under the recommendation on the variances, it says that they'll put this on the development plan. I do not believe that you need a specific condition to do that. We've covered that aspect. And, um, the... In order to answer your question about the height in the R5 zone, it's a four to one height to yard ratio. Uh, they're showing about a, uh, a 10-foot side yard, so that would max out at about 40 feet of height. Does that make sense? And so, with the narrow width of this particular property, uh, that's going to max out the maximum height that they could put in this proposed R5 zone. And I've... And so now, uh, to present the, uh, variance report, it is located, uh, on your agendum in the addendum, and the, uh, staff report is in your book directly behind the, uh, zone change report. There are two variances requested, and they are both to the front yards. Uh, the first one is the front yard along South Upper Street, and the second one is the front yard that would be required along Max Alley. Uh, this property is bounded, as, as you know, uh, by three c- uh, by a public street on three sides, and that's because Max Alley has that 90-degree turn to come back out to South Upper Street, uh, for the subject property. There are very few properties in the area that are bounded by public streets on all three sides. Uh, should you rezone the property R5, the R5 zone has a 20-foot front yard, which would be required off of South Upper Street. Uh, in our ordinance already, because, uh, Max Alley is an alley, it would be half of the otherwise required, so it would be 10 feet, uh, along Max Alley. The existing structure, which is up at the corner of Max Alley and South Upper Street, is already at the zero building, uh, zero-foot building line, and the majority... and the structure as it exists today is already non-conforming, uh, for its setbacks. Should you rezone the property R5 and the new, uh, front yard setbacks are applied, this structure would be considered a non-conforming structure, and it would not be allowed to expand. So, uh, the proposed addition that is shown on this development plan, and the reason why they're going for the zone change, could not expand unless the variants were granted to the front yards on this. Uh, the staff, in our review and approval of this, um, we are recommending approval of the two variance requests, uh, to the front yards on South Upper Street and Max Alley, uh, because they would not, uh, adversely affect the public safety, health, or the general character of the area. As it's been noted, this is in an H-1, and any type of approvals, uh, will also, for any type of building that'll have to go out there will have to go in front of the Board of Architectural Review. Uh, the staff found that important in our findings. Uh, also, the fact that it is bounded by th- uh, public street on three sides, and there are very few properties, uh, in the general vicinity that could say that. That does mean get, this is not a circumvention of the ordinance whenever you have a property that has unique characteristics such as that. And, uh, the requested variances are not a result of any prior actions on the, uh, by the applicant. Uh, the staff is recommending approval of this for the reasons listed in your staff report, with the four conditions, one of those being that should you approve the variances, that they'll be noted on the preliminary development plan. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer 'em. Thank you. Are there any questions? I just have one. Yes, go ahead. You know, when we talk about the maximum building height, still you're limited by your parking requirements, so- Yes, the, the, the, uh, the parking, uh, is limited to, I believe it's one per unit in the R5 zone, Tom? Is that correct? Or is it the one and a half? Jimmy, it's most restrictive, and in this case, both of those conditions are met by this plan. They're, it's rare, but they're equal in this case. Bedrooms and unit. Bedrooms and units. And they max out with the 11 parking spaces that are required, so those would not have to be provided. And they are not asking for any variances to the side yard requirements. That would also keep their height down because of the height to yard ratio. Ms. Copeland? Mr. Emmons? Yes? Um, so let's say that we agree to the variances. Now, how many stories high can they go? No more than they can right now. It's still, um, their side yard, I believe is 10 feet and maximum of 40 feet. 40 feet. So we're gonna hold- Four to one height- So we hold- ... regard this year. ... it at 40 feet regardless? Yes. Which is 12, 12, and 12. I think the buil- Tony, do you know how tall the building is right now? 35. It's about 35 feet right now. Okay, three stories high. And there are- And it's two and a half stories high now. And this would just be at the back. You'd keep the front-facing South Upper Street part the same. Are there other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Petitioner? Thank you. I really don't have anything further to add. Uh, I could probably answer some questions and maybe I'll just kind of further answer questions that have already been, been asked, but, uh, first I'd like to, uh, Peter Cassidy is here from the South Hill Neighborhood Association and he will, uh, speak for himself, but I wanna thank them publicly, the South Hill Neighborhood Association, for their, uh, cooperation with us and ou- their endurance. Uh, they had, we've had several meetings and, uh, since I've been involved in the project and meetings prior to my, uh, participation in the project, and I wish to thank them for their, uh, continued, um, um, just, uh, agreeing to meet with us and the cooperation, uh, between the two groups. Uh, and the staff as well has been, uh, cooperative in, uh, we initially filed one zone change, uh, postponed it, amended it, so it's been a little bit of an evolution, uh, working with both the staff and the neighborhood association. And, uh, hopefully it, uh, will, uh, you're seeing the, the fruits of those, uh, of those coordinated, uh, meetings. Uh, I have some, uh, uh, items that I'll just submit for the record that, uh, are highlights from the comprehensive plan and the, uh, downtown, uh, master plan, uh, a little history of the, of the, of the structure, and, uh, and then I've got some photographs, uh, that kind of support the, uh, the character of the neighborhood, uh, relative to the variances. The, um, uh, but that's pretty much just redundant from what the staff has, has already presented, so I'll, uh, just submit those. But the, uh, the intent for the building is, is, a- and if you've driven by it recently you'll see, uh, what is happening. Uh, he's going to keep the, uh, the existing structure, uh, with the exception of the shed that's in the rear. It's a, uh, later addition, um, and it's not in character with, with the, with the front, uh, section nor with the, uh, with the L, uh, in, in the rear. Uh, so he's gonna tear the, the shed down and build a, uh, a single unit condo townhouse, uh, intended, uh, for the owner as a, uh, as a residence for him. Uh, but he's, uh, uh, been restoring the structure. Uh, there was a fire in 2005 that pretty much gutted it. Uh, it's had, uh, years of neglect, uh, prior to his purchase, and he's been, uh, he's had contractors on site for, I don't know, three months now. Probably three months, uh, tuckpointing and securing the structure, and, uh, there's quite a bit of, of work to, to be done and, and it's evident from, uh, from the outside, the, the work. You can see all the tuckpointing that's being done. So, uh, it's a, it's a rather, uh, large undertaking and he's, uh, taken it on with, uh, uh, renewed, uh, energy with the, uh, positive support from the neighborhood and the, uh, and the council. So, I appreciate, uh, uh, your all's, uh, favorable recommendation and if you've got any specific questions for me I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you. Are there questions from Commission? Thank you. Thank you. Would you like to- Uh, thank you, Madam Chairman. I, again, I'm Peter Cassidy with the South Hill Neighborhood Association, and I'd also like to echo Mr. Barrett's comments. We appreciate, uh, Mr. Schubert and Mr. Barrett, uh, continuing to work with the neighborhood to try to come to a solution that we would all, uh, be able to live with. As some of you all may remember, the neighborhood, um, opposed strongly the, the neighboring zone change at the First United Methodist Church from, uh, an R2 and an R4 to a B2B. Uh, we were very concerned about continued non-residential uses creeping into the center of the residential portion of the neighborhood, which would have included the MU2 zone that was applied for previously. And, uh, Mr. Schubert, with the, uh, guidance of Mr. Barrett, were able to come up with the R, R5 zone, which was going to accommodate, I think, and does accommodate, Mr. Schubert's plans. And with the conditional zoning that, uh, the applicants agreed to, as well as with staff recommendations, the neighborhood's very comfortable, uh, with this plan going forward as submitted, uh, with staff's recommendations. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's, uh, say no one else left to speak, so, uh, we will close this portion of the hearing and I will open up for discussion. I will tell you that we need three motions for, uh, for this. The fir- first motion would be the zone motion map amendment, the second would be the variance, and the third, then, would be the development plan. But we'll, I'll open it up for questions or concerns that the, uh, Commission may have. If not, do I hear a motion, uh, regarding MARV2000-14, the RES Land Inc., uh, amend, map amendment? Madam Chair, um, I would like to make a motion for approval of M- MARV2009-14, um, RAS Landing amendment. Second. Based on the recommendations of the staff. I have a motion made and second. Uh, all in favor say, "Aye." Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. At this time, do I hear a motion for, uh, the, uh, on your addendum for the, um, uh, requie- requested variance to reduce the front yard on South Upper Street from 20 feet to zero feet for principal structure, and to reduce the required front yard on Max Island Alley from 10 feet to zero feet for principal structure? Do I hear a motion to that effect? Madam Chair, uh, uh, I think I can handle this. Right up my alley. Um, I move for approval- No pun intended. No pun intended, sorry. Uh, move for approval of the requested variances for RAS Landing Incorporated, uh, subject, uh, as the staff has recommended, subject to the four conditions as listed. I have a motion and second. All in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, likewise. Motion carries. Now, I need a motion for ZDP2000-76, RAS property located at 333 South Upper Street. Do I hear a motion? Madam Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP2009-76, uh, with the, um, 14 re- recommendations... Oh, I'm sorry, down to 10 recommendations, um, as provided by staff. Just for clarification, I think there was a misnumbering, and I think there are actually nine conditions remaining. Okay, revise that to nine conditions. We'll get there. Correct. Do I have a second? Oh. Second. Any discussion? All in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Are there any staff items? No, Madam Chair. Are there any items that the commission would like to address? If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Move we adjourn, Madam Chairman. Quickest I believe we've ever done. All in favor? That's all right. For a zoning meeting, man. That's a... You got it.