# Urban County Council Meeting - Zoning Public Hearing - November 17, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 17, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3512 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3512?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-11-17 - **Last revised**: November 17, 2014 - **Length**: 29,180 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council convened on November 17, 2014, at 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice-Mayor Linda Gorton presiding over the session. The meeting focused primarily on a single agenda item involving a zoning change ordinance, which was successfully approved by the council. During the course of the meeting, council members conducted four separate motions and votes on various matters before them. The council also heard from six members of the public who provided comments during the public comment period, allowing community input on issues of local concern. The primary accomplishment of the evening was the approval of an ordinance changing the zone classification from a Professional Office (P-1) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone, representing a significant zoning decision for the affected property and surrounding area. ## Attendance The meeting on November 17, 2014 had twelve members present and three absent. **Present:** • Linda Gorton • Beard • Clarke • Ellinger • Farmer • Ford • Henson • Lawless • Mossotti • Myers • Scutchfield • Akers **Absent:** • Kay • Lane • Stinnett No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The council took four votes during the November 17, 2014 meeting, including one ordinance and three procedural motions. **Ordinance 1034-14** - An ordinance changing the zone from a Professional Office (P-1) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone for property located at 626-634 Euclid Avenue was approved with conditional restrictions. Mr. Farmer motioned and Mr. Myers seconded the measure. The ordinance passed unanimously by roll call vote with 12 ayes and 0 nays. All council members voted in favor: Beard, Clarke, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Gorton, Henson, Lawless, Mossotti, Myers, Scutchfield, and Akers. The approval included a condition prohibiting drive-through facilities as a use. **Time Limitation Motion** - Mr. Ellinger motioned to limit each side's presentation to forty-five minutes, seconded by Ms. Mossotti. This procedural motion passed unanimously with all 12 council members voting in favor. **Architectural Rendering Motion** - Ms. Mossotti motioned to allow the presentation of architectural renderings, seconded by Mr. Beard. This motion failed by roll call vote with 4 ayes and 8 nays. Voting in favor were Mossotti and Akers. Voting against were Ellinger, Ford, Gorton, Henson, Lawless, Myers, Scutchfield, and Akers. **Closing Statement Time Limit** - Ms. Lawless motioned to limit closing statements to ten minutes for each party, seconded by Mr. Beard. This procedural motion passed unanimously with all 12 council members voting in favor. All votes had full council participation with 12 members present. No abstentions were recorded on any of the four votes taken during the meeting. ## Public Comment Six members of the public spoke during the public comment period regarding a requested zone change, with five speakers opposing the proposal and one speaking in support. **Support for Zone Change:** • Mr. Graham Pohl spoke in favor of the requested zone change. **Opposition to Zone Change:** • Mr. Melvin Cosby spoke against the requested zone change and presented pictures of buildings in the area to support his position. • Ms. Kate Savage spoke in opposition to the requested zone change. • Ms. Leanne Parker-Greathouse spoke against the requested zone change. • Ms. Rosa Brown spoke in opposition to the requested zone change and filed a map of the subject area as part of her testimony. • Mr. Jonathan Kern spoke against the requested zone change. The public comment period demonstrated significant community opposition to the proposed zone change, with opponents outnumbering supporters five to one. Two speakers provided visual materials to support their positions - Mr. Cosby presented photographs of area buildings and Ms. Brown filed a map of the subject area. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for the public comment speakers.* ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that drew community opposition and discussion among board members. **Zone Change at 626-634 Euclid Avenue** A proposed zone change for the property located at 626-634 Euclid Avenue faced significant opposition from community members during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Residents expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts the zone change could have on their neighborhood, specifically citing worries about increased traffic congestion and noise levels that could result from the proposed development. Community members who spoke against the proposal argued that the zone change would alter the character of the area and create additional burdens on local infrastructure. The opposition focused primarily on quality of life issues, with residents emphasizing that the current zoning was more appropriate for maintaining the neighborhood's existing residential nature. The specific outcome of this contested item was not clearly documented in the available meeting materials, though the community opposition was noted as a significant factor in the board's consideration of the proposal. The concerns raised by residents regarding traffic and noise impacts appeared to be the primary points of contention that required additional discussion and evaluation by the reviewing body. This zone change request represented the type of land use decision that often generates community interest and participation, as residents seek to have input on developments that could directly affect their daily lives and property values in the surrounding area. ## Ordinance changing the zone from a Professional Office (P-1) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone The council considered Ordinance 1034-14, which proposed changing the zoning classification for 0.588 net acres (0.852 gross acres) of property located at 626-634 Euclid Avenue. The ordinance sought to rezone the area from a Professional Office (P-1) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone. Key speakers during the discussion included Linda Gorton, John Talbott, Mark Barker, Amy Clark, and Bill Sallee. The ordinance was presented for second reading, indicating it had previously been introduced and reviewed by the council. The proposed zoning change would allow for different types of commercial uses on the property compared to the current professional office designation. A Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone typically permits a broader range of retail and service establishments that serve the immediate neighborhood, while a Professional Office (P-1) zone is more restrictive and primarily allows for professional services and office uses. Following discussion among the council members, the ordinance was approved. The successful passage of this zoning change will enable the property owner to pursue development or use of the site consistent with neighborhood business standards rather than being limited to professional office uses. The approval of Ordinance 1034-14 represents a shift in the intended use character for this section of Euclid Avenue, potentially allowing for more diverse commercial activities that could serve the surrounding residential and business community. --- ## Decisions - **1034-14** — passed (12-0): An Ordinance changing the zone from a Professional Office (P-1) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone for property located at 626-634 Euclid Avenue - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Limit each side’s presentation to forty-five minutes - **Motion** — failed (4-8): Allow the presentation of the architectural rendering - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Limit time for closing statements to ten minutes for each party --- ## Full transcript The first thing I would like to do is, it's my understanding that Mr. Talbot is representing the petitioner, and Amy Clark and Mark Parker. Mark, you're here. I don't see Amy. So I need to first ask if, is she in the building, do you think? She's trying to park. Okay, trying to park. We want to get some agreement on a time limit for both the petitioner and the opponent's side of 45 minutes on each side. and I need to have her agreement. The other option is if, I know Mr. Talbot has already agreed to this. If the other side is not, the most... I just requested that in the other side, someone to make a motion for the committee. Okay, did she give you permission to approve that? Because the council can go ahead and make a motion to do it. I think she's going to be a person to do it. Okay. Well, I would suggest then that we have a motion, since Amy's not here, that we have a motion to go ahead, if it is the will of the council, to set a 45-minute limit on each side. Do we want to take a roll first, and then we can... Do you want to call the roll first, and then we'll have a... I think there is some sentiment to do the time limit. Well, I don't know. We've already got a legal question. Until I do the swearing in, can she arrive late and still participate? Council Member Lawless. Yes. Oh, no. Council Member can't. Who are you asking about? Well, both Ms. Clark, who's wanting to present on the opponent's side, and then we have a potential council member who may arrive late. I think the council member has to be here for the whole thing, do they not? She needs to be here for all the presentation of any evidence that's going to go towards the decision that's going to be made tonight. So, you know, there's obviously some things that need to take place preliminarily, But after that, you know, she would be missing out on hearing the evidence that should be considered. So if we call the roll and do the time limit and then I go over the rules, can she arrive, the council member arrive after that and still participate? I think, yes, she can. But once you start taking evidence, which will come first from Mr. Sally, then I think at that point we have a bargain. That makes sense. All right. Very good. Okay, she's here. So we have no problem. All right. Do you want to go ahead and call the roll? Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Clark? I'm here. Mr. Ellinger? Here. Mr. Farmer? Here. Mr. Ford? Here. Ms. Gorton? Here. Ms. Henson? Here. Mr. Kay? Mr. Lane? Ms. Lawless? Here. Ms. Massadi? Here. Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Gutchfield? Here. Mr. Sinnott? And Ms. Akers? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Now, the first item of business is to attend to the time limit. limit. So without the presence of Ms. Clark, we cannot have an agreement on each side. So Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I make a motion that we limit testimony from each side to 45 minutes each. So moved. Second. So we have a motion and a second to limit testimony on each side to 45 minutes. Now, this is for the presenter of each side. This does not limit other citizens from speaking for three minutes each. And if you want to do that, you need to sign up in the back on the sign-up sheet back there. So is there any discussion of the motion? I see none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you very much. So each side will be limited to 45 minutes presentation. And so, Mr. Barker, that will mean that you'll need to coordinate with Amy to be total of 45 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now, this is a legal proceeding, and so I'm required to go through the rules with everyone so that everyone knows how we have to proceed. And before I do that, Tracy, I'll ask your advice on this. Do we want to go ahead and have the clerk give the second reading before we go through the rules? Or is afterward okay? She can go ahead and do second reading. Okay. Will you go ahead and do that, please? an ordinance changing the zone from a professional office p1 zone to a neighborhood business b1 zone for 0.588 net 0.852 gross acres for property located at 626 through 634 euclid avenue color properties llc council district 3 thank you very much now i'm required to do a little bit of brief explanation of the rules. So the presiding officer announces the beginning of the hearing and it has begun. And I will swear in all witnesses. And so given that Amy's not here yet, we'll wait on the swearing in just until I go through the rules. We can swear her in later. That's true. Okay, so let's go ahead then. And everyone who intends to speak, will you please stand? And if you'll raise your right hand. I do solemnly swear that everything I say will be the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Just I do is great. Thank you. Now, if you've not been sworn in, you're not permitted to testify, but I can swear you in later if you need to testify. Those who are sworn in and who testify have to stay for the entire hearing in case there's any rebuttal or questions of you. Does everyone understand that? Okay, so you can't leave early. Okay. The time limits have been agreed to by the council, 45 minutes per side. The presiding officer has the power to make evidentiary decisions to exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony from the record. Council members may inform the presiding officer when they believe testimony is irrelevant or repetitious so that the presiding officer may issue an evidentiary ruling to exclude or limit such testimony if the presiding officer agrees. So in other words, we don't want everyone saying the same thing. Okay? That's what would be repetitious or something that's irrelevant. and the petitioner shall submit a witness list to the presiding officer at the beginning of your presentation and the opponents shall provide a witness list at the beginning of their presentation. And so when you get ready to make your presentations, if you'll just bring it to me, please. all parties in favor of the zone change shall submit all printed materials to be tendered for admission into evidence to council members council clerk and department of law at the beginning of the presentation any opponents must do the same thing at the beginning of the presentation each witness who's identified on the witness list of the opposite side and who testifies shall be subject to cross-examination. Any witness called by the petitioner or the opponents will stay in the public hearing so they may be questioned by the petitioner, the opponent's attorney, or a member of counsel later in the hearing. All persons speaking at the podium shall identify themselves by name and address for the record. all documents that are given to be considered by the council shall be marked and numbered as exhibits and all with law's help just say which exhibit it will be will kind of go in order and entered into the record by the clerk architectural renderings of developments will not be permitted to be introduced into evidence at council hearings for any reason that the council has no power for the reason that the council has no power except in a historic one or an H1 overlay zone to bind developers to construct the buildings as depicted. So is that clear to the petitioner? Preliminary development plans filed in conjunction with zone changes, which show building footprints, parking, and other basic information may be accepted into evidence. Council members, do you have any questions about that? Okay. All right. So we are still missing the opponent's main spokesperson, person and I'm ready to to start so what is your suggestion if she is not here she I think you can go ahead she she'll just I mean she's presenting one side of the evidence so Bill can go ahead and start but she will not be able to hear what's presented before no she won't but she's not the one you all are the ones that are making the decision so it'll be okay to proceed and she She was at the Planning Commission. Okay, very good. Thank you for that advice. All right, first up is we'll have presentation of Planning Division staff. We'll welcome Bill Salley. Thank you, Vice Mayor, members of the Council. Good evening. As is our custom, there are a number of items I need to enter into the record of your hearing this evening. The first is the legal notice that was published in the local newspaper advertising the date and time for your public hearing this evening. The next is an affidavit that I myself have signed regarding the mailed notices that were sent regarding this hearing. All property owners within 500 feet of this location have mailed a notice letter. In addition, the nearest registered neighborhood associations have also been informed of the date and time of your public hearing this evening. Need to enter into the record the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission. They had a hearing in August and continued that hearing in September of this year and have made a recommendation to you on this matter which I'll be presenting in a few minutes. There are copies that have been given at your place prior to the hearing. There are also a few at the end of the counter behind me for anyone in the audience that would like to review this information. I'd like to enter into the record a number of communications that the planning staff has received regarding this zone change. Many of these were received between the August 28th and September 11th meetings of the Planning Commission. The Commission closed their meeting in August and did not accept new evidence at their September meeting. Also in addition, we've received a petition signed that will circulate to you at this time. I'll enter the originals into the record and circulate a copy to the Council. In addition, we have for the record the communications that were received at the Planning Commission public hearing, and we can either circulate those to the Council or enter them to the record, either one. Just a few other items. I need to enter into the record a copy of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. This has been approved by the Planning Commission and of course the Council has adopted the goals and objectives portion of this plan. And then finally a copy of the current zoning ordinance and the current land subdivision regulations that are in effect for Lexington and Fayette County. I'd like to take just a moment to orient you to the location of the subject property using the rendered zoning map that we have here on the wall. The property has an address of 626, 630, and 634 Euclid Avenue. And these properties are on the south side of Euclid in close proximity to the very prominent intersection of High Street and Euclid Avenue. Euclid becomes Fontaine heading further east from that intersection. This property is about two blocks from that intersection to the west. This is South Ashland Avenue at this location. And this is Marquise Avenue here. It's directly across from Lafayette Avenue. Both Marquise and Lafayette form T intersections, and the subject property is on the southwest corner of the intersection of Marquise Avenue and Euclid Avenue. It consists of three lots that are currently zoned P1, that's a professional office zone, and the petitioner has asked for a neighborhood business B1 zone for these three parcels. There is B1 zoning in this general vicinity. This location a little farther down Euclid on both directions, and then the much larger area closer to the intersections of South Ashland and on the west side of East High Street, this entire area is Zone B1. There's also P1 zoning in this area. In fact, the subject property is surrounded on almost three sides entirely by P1 zoning. Directly across Marquise Avenue is a B6P zone, where a Kroger store is currently under development. And there is also R1E, single family residential zoning, directly across Euclid Avenue at this location. I would like to show you a couple of aerial photos of the property so you get a little better flavor of the existing conditions in the area. This is a photo looking from the north to the south. And here we have Euclid Avenue. This is Marquise Avenue here, Lafayette Avenue here. South Ashland is just off the photo. The subject property consists of these three parcels, which also have along their rear property line here, McCaw's Alley, an alley that runs between Marquise and Park Avenue. It's a very narrow facility, but all three of the properties have access both to the alley and along their frontage on Euclid Avenue. These structures are all former dwellings, former residential structures, about a story and a half typically. They're all currently zoned for professional office, and the staff believes at some point in the past, I should say, they have been used from time to time for professional services. It's directly adjacent to a two-story office building at this location. And as I mentioned, this photo is about 18 months old. the site across Marquise looks nothing like that today. This is a photo of the old Kroger store that occupied that property for many years. I have one other photo just a little bit closer up view of the front of the subject properties. Again, here we have Euclid Avenue. This is Marquise Avenue. A little better view of McCaw's Alley here and Lafayette Avenue here. There's a bank and a parking lot directly across the street, non-conforming business use in this property that zoned residential. The two-story office building here and the parking lot at the time for the Kroger store. Property directly behind is in a P1 zone as well. And this building used to be in a P1 zone. It is now zoned R5. Finally, this is a view of the zoning map in the area, much like the one on the wall, except this photo also shows the structures that are on these properties. Again, to orient you, this is our B6P zone for the Kroger store that's under development. The subject properties are here. P1 is shown in blue. Residential R1E in the yellow. And the B1 area I mentioned between South Ashland and East High Street here in the red. The planning staff always reviews zone changes in light of the comprehensive plan. And in your packets here, you will see on two tan-colored sheets, two staff reports that were made on this. The initial staff report that was made to the zoning committee of the planning commission, and then a supplemental staff report. The planning staff reviewed the application for rezoning from P1 to B1, and reported to the Planning Commission that staff did not have an issue with the proposed intensification of the zoning of the subject property. However, we were very concerned with the form that that development was proposing. And at the time of the development plan that was pending at that moment, the staff did not believe that it met all of the B-1 zoning requirements. And so initially, the planning staff recommended a postponement of this zoning hearing prior to the Planning Commission's meeting. Subsequent changes were made to the development plan that were suitable and which the staff felt did meet all of the B-1 requirements. And so you can see on the supplemental staff report, the staff changed its recommendation from postponement to an approval of this zone change from P-1 to B-1. We found that it met several of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and the general direction of the comprehensive plan calling for appropriate infill and appropriate redevelopment in many of our areas. The staff made that recommendation to the Planning Commission at their public hearing, which was scheduled in late August of this year. The Commission heard not just from the planning staff, but also from many residents in the area, also from the petitioner and their representatives that are here this evening as well. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing on August 28th, if you've read the minutes, you will see there were a number of motions made by the Commission at their meeting on August 28th. In general, the Commission was unable at that meeting to reach a chord or consensus on what the conditional zoning restrictions ought to be for this property. There were three separate motions made to enact conditional zoning restrictions, primarily in the form of prohibited uses for this location, but none of those motions passed. The final motion made at that hearing was to continue the Planning Commission's consideration to their next meeting, which was September 11th of this year. There were nine commission members present in August, and I believe the votes that they had were four to five each time. On September 11th, there were fewer members present, but they did consider a different motion to enact seven conditional zoning restrictions for the property. The motion that was made at that time did pass the planning commission by a vote of seven to zero. And again, they heard updated information from the staff and from the applicant upon questioning as well. The Planning Commission did recommend conditional approval of this rezoning from Professional Office 1 to Neighborhood Business 1, subject to seven conditional zoning restrictions, because they found, as the staff did, that the proposed zone change was in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. The reasons for that recommendation are laid out on the first page of this document, but to summarize them briefly, the first was that the plan recommends compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service areas to accommodate our future growth needs. Secondly, the plan recommends identifying opportunities for infill and redevelopment and also adaptive reuses that respect the area's context and design features wherever possible. The petitioner proposes a redevelopment that is sensitive to the surrounding properties and which will improve the commercial corridor of Euclid Avenue. Thirdly, the proposed B-1 zone is compatible with the immediately adjoining B-6P and P-1 zoning. The prohibited uses that were recommended by the commission to go into effect on this property are a prohibition of schools for academic instruction, funeral parlors, liquor stores, automobile service stations, banquet facilities, cocktail lounges, nightclubs or bars, and live entertainment uses. Besides considering the zoning of the property, the Planning Commission also reviewed the development plan, preliminary development plan that was filed in conjunction with this change. We have that on the board also. The development plan for the property proposes that none of the three buildings on the property remain, but in fact that two of them be replaced with a single-story retail and restaurant building of about 10,000 square feet, and that the third building be removed to allow for off-street parking for those uses. The property would have access from Euclid Avenue and also access to Macaw's Alley in the rear, And in addition, a drive-through facility was approved on this preliminary plan by the Commission for use on the back side of the building as well. The nearby office building that we saw in the photos is shown here just for reference. And again, this is across the street from the Kroger store now under construction. This plan proposes 25 off-street parking spaces. It was approved by the Planning Commission at the conclusion of their meeting on September 21st. 1st, pardon me, September 11th, and it was certified two weeks later. Vice Mayor, that concludes my prepared remarks. As you know, I will be available throughout the evening for any questions that the council may have later in the evening. Thank you very much. While you're still at the podium, does the petitioner have any cross-examination? Okay, Thank you. Does the opponent have any cross-examination? No. That's very. And thank you very much. There are no questions. At this point, Ms. Clark, we have already sworn in folks who want to speak. If you would like to speak, I'll need to swear you in. Do you? Okay. You can just stay in place. You can stay at your place. You don't have to come. so just if you'll raise your right hand please do you swear that everything you intend to say at the podium is the truth and nothing but the truth okay thank you very much and as i stated earlier all those who are sworn in and who speak need to remain for the entire hearing unless there in case there are questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Salee. Okay. This is the point at which we hear an opening statement by the petitioner and presentation of direct evidence and including any witness list that you might want to give me. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You have a witness list. I'm John Talbot. I'm here on behalf of Collar Properties. Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you. And do you have the timer? Yes. We agreed, Ms. Clark, the council had a motion to limit each side to 45 minutes total. And then any individuals can speak for three minutes each. So I'll ask. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Talbot. Thank you. I guess to complete the record, I'd like to go ahead and put in our sign affidavit that the sign was posted. Okay. Tonight I have the pleasure to be here on behalf of Collar Properties. I want to introduce some of the principals that are with me at night for Collar Properties, who are Steve Collar, Brett Collar, Jason Taylor, and then Tony Barrett, who are two of our professionals here with us tonight. Collar Properties has been developing property in the Fayette County area for the past 40 years. It would take too long to go through the entire list of properties that they've done around town, but a few I think that are noteworthy are the Chevy Chase Plaza, which they fairly recently acquired, and their scope of being in town. They re-tentered it with Raiders and McAllister's. I think Fox 56 is still there, the news channel. Then coming around from there, they developed the Ashland Plaza, which has Starbucks, Sotheby's real estate offices are at tenants in that. From there, Saratoga Center with Tomo and Great Clips. We'll see another project there. It's just the Main and Rose Condominium Developments downtown. down. All these projects are attractive and successful. We are pretty much in agreement with what Mr. Salley said, we're in agreement with what Mr. Salley said in his orientation and I agree with that. If I could just maybe put a few pictures on the screen to kind of show you some of this in the area. Okay, this is the Chevy Chase Plaza as it currently exists It's a day that's owned and operated by the Collars. And if you go to the next picture. This is the Saratoga Center. Just kind of the Chevy Chase Plaza in the background. The Collars offices are on the second floor of that building. Gray Clips, Tomo are there. And if you go to the next picture. That's the Ashland Venture building with Starbucks and Sotheby's. And just up the street from there. So as you can see, they are heavily invested in this area, every reason to do a quality development on this project as well. Let me go to the next one. These are, in his next three pictures, just show the existing houses that are going to be demolished to make way, as Mr. Sally said, for the retail building in a parking lot. The next, what is there now? So what I'd like to do is to, this is, Vice Mayor, I understood that the prohibition against architectural renderings, and so it's not to violate that, but I do have one I think that's appropriate, if nothing else, to see the scale of what we propose to do in keeping with what's being built. Obviously with the new Kroger store going in there, and again, we're not offering this as an architectural rendering of what would go there, but really just more or less to show the scale, if that's okay. Is that okay with counsel? I see yeses. No? We can vote if you, Council Member Lawless. Okay. If you'll take it down just a moment. And we would need a motion from someone on the council to allow this one, what did you call it? Rendering to see the scale. So if you want to see it, I'll need a motion from a council member to allow it. Vice Mayor, I'll make the motion that we allow the architectural rendering to look at the scale of the potential project. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Massadi and a second by Council Member Beard. Are there any questions or comments on the motion? okay are you logged in Ms. Massadi for a question no okay Councilmember Ellinger thank you Vice Mayor can I ask our council does this violate our rules about the renderings or would this be fall within it you all can vote to put in certain renderings but they're not going to be bound to that drawing exactly because that will have to be on a final development plan with the planning commission. Thank you. Does everyone understand that? Just because it's shown doesn't mean that's what will be there. That's not within our purview to approve. Okay. Council member Lawless? That's my concern is we've seen renderings before in these meetings and rarely is that what really happens, but certainly they're not held to it. So I think it is prejudicial in that who knows what they're going to put there. I mean, this isn't the development plan. This is about the zoning. So that's my objection. And I also understand the concern and want to see it, but it doesn't bind them in any way. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess, Council, that was my question, is could it be said later on that this maybe prejudiced the Council by allowing this to be seen? It depends on what your discussion is about it. Of course, you know, if somebody wants to challenge it, that's always available. But if you're looking at it for scale and not for, or, you know, things that are not for what it's actually going to be in that spot, possibly not. I mean, I can't tell you what somebody might raise on an appeal, but if you vote to do it for a specific reason and limit it, you know, that's a safer route if you want to see it, but you're not required to. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Massadi. Ms. Jones. Me too. We don't need it. Tracy. I'm sorry. I have a question in reference to this architectural rendering. Do we not have the ability to limit scale on the development plan or not? You have the ability to limit things in terms of use and buffering in your conditions in a zone change, but the planning commission is going to really hear the issues about the specific way a project is constructed. So we have no ability to determine the, I guess, the height? No, I don't think so. No. Okay. That's what I need to know. Thank you. Are there other questions, council members, about the motion? All right. I think we'll go ahead and have an electronic vote. All those in favor of allowing this architectural rendering, vote yes. All those opposed, vote no, and the screen will come up soon. There it is. And we should have 12 votes. We have 12 votes. The motion to see the rendering fails. So if you'll go ahead and continue. The proposed development, just kind of staying with the scale of it, is going to be shorter than the buildings on either side of the existing two-story building. That's the Ashland, I think it's called the Ashland Building, and certainly the Kroger Building is quite a bit taller next door. It's going to have parking on the roof of it. This building will literally be in the shadow of that building. And then kind of walking around the, let's see, the development plan. We can show the development plan, right? That's option, right? So just kind of to orientate you, the Kroger building is on the left side of the picture and the Ashland building is on the right. The drive-through that's in the back, if you'll take a look at McCaw's alley back there, that's actually going to be widened to 18 feet from its existing 12 feet at the expense of the petitioner to make a better traffic situation. We've worked with traffic and have agreed to put in some speed bumps in that alley to slow down the traffic through there because it is an alley. It's not a street. Then we've agreed to eliminate the parking on the side of Marquee that's adjacent to our building, and that will improve the sight line down Marquee. So somebody pulling out of McCall's alley will see the oncoming traffic from the left better. We think those all make great traffic improvements. to this area. The Division of Traffic was approved this plan with the drive-thru as shown. The plan itself is subject to working out the fenestration, the siding of the building with your planning staff. Any questions about this really I don't think is the time for questions from council exactly. Is that correct Tracy, yes, we'll get to those. Don't worry. And so we are in agreement, as I said, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission with the seven prohibited uses as shown on the plan that's been certified by the Planning Commission. Okay. And at this point, I'm not going to call any witnesses, but I will save my witnesses for rebuttal. Okay. All right. Very good. So I will ask the opponents, let's see. Tracy, would this be the time for cross-examination? Yes, it would be. Is there anyone who wishes to ask a cross-examination question? And just so everybody's clear, any cross-examination has to be on something that was stated during their presentation. Something that the petitioner stated just now in his petition presentation. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is a question for him. It is. Do I need to identify myself? Yes, you do. Thank you. My name is Amy Clark. I live at 628 Castle Road, and I speak on behalf of the Euclid League and the petitioners we've gathered. My question regarding rebuttal, you mentioned the scale of the building. On the plan, it says that it will be a 35-foot building. It's a one-story building of 35 feet. Is the roof at 35 feet, or do you have parapets and towers? Can you explain why 35 feet seems right for a one-story building? The building itself will not exceed 25 feet. The 35 feet is what's permitted under the ordinance to the midpoint of the gable. And so with the building that we anticipate building, it's going to be 25 feet or less. Does that answer your question? Just to clarify, is that the roof or is it parapets and things? the mass and scale of the building from the outer facade will seem to be 25 feet. Is that it? Well, because I think that we could, the building from the outside will be, it seemed to be 25 feet, including parapets. So it will have a facade of 25 feet, but there will be, you know, a step down inside that, inside the parapet. Okay. This is just a procedural question. Should I show the certified development plan submitted and ratified by the planning commission that does indicate 35 feet? I don't think. I'll ask Tracy for her opinion on that. The development plan is right up there on the wall. And, you know, these are really development plan issues. So the council doesn't have any vote in the final development plan of this. We simply have a vote whether to change the zone or not. So thank you. Are there any other cross-exam questions on what was just presented? So Amy, did that finish your questions? Yes. Mr. Sally, you have the right, I think, to cross-exam. No? Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. Did that complete your presentation? All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Talbot. Now, at this point is the presentation of the opponent, and this, too, will be limited to 45 minutes total. So I hope that, Amy, you, and Ms. Clark and Mr. Barker have worked out your time. Welcome. Hello, my name is Mark Barker. I live at 439 Park Avenue, which is in the impact zone. I am also the president of Columbia Heights, and I'd just like to note that Columbia Heights, in the last meeting, did vote to oppose this. I'd like to just show some pictures and make some comments based upon those. This is one of the houses that is being proposed to be demolished. If you look at the next picture, this is the veterinary clinic that's about three or four doors down. If they look similar, they are. They're pretty much built the same time. They're pretty much the same building except for this one has been maintained and is a thriving business that is winning awards. Some people in the neighborhood do not understand why this business is basically the same building and the same zoning that currently exists is thriving while the building just three or four houses down needs to be torn down. It doesn't seem to make sense to me. If you look at professional use zoning, they're all occupied on this block except for the building is probably torn down, but there's retail that's vacant. So it seems to me people that the P1 is more needed in this area than the B1. Next slide, please. This is my house. Yeah, that's better. I'm in the impact. I'm just giving you an example of what the neighborhood looks like. This is my house. I've tried to maintain it well, but if I was allowed to, one of the reasons that's being said to allow this zone change is that these houses are deteriorating. Well, if my house had allowed my house to deteriorate, would it be acceptable to upzone it to be one and put in a drive-through in the back down an alley that is clearly unsafe? I just want to ask that question. Next slide, please. This is a house on Marquis. The Marquis Street is majority residential. There's a new Kroger, but still the majority of the street are houses like this. It is on the National Register of Historic Places. The houses on the other side of the street in Ellsworth are also on the National Register of Historic Places. And I recognize that the buildings that are being torn down in and of themselves may not be historically significant. But I do think the neighborhood as a whole is historically significant. And whatever is replaced there should respect the context of the original architecture and the original buildings that are in place. Next slide, please. This is my basement. It's not a very good picture. I'm sorry. It's about a foot of water in there. This is about two months ago. We have had sustained storm sewer problems. They seem to be slowly getting worse as more and more areas filled in. We've complained about it. We've complained about it. We've complained about it. The city has done nothing. And what really shocks me about this current development is there's that one drop of water retention on the whole plant. We have an area that has severe stormwater problems. The storm sewer in front of my house overflows. The water runs down the driveway next to me, and it floods my basement. And I don't understand how you can approve these developments and not require any storm retention on site. The current site has 22 full-grown trees. It is majority grass. And you're replacing it with all concrete and building with absolutely zero storm retention on site. It's crazy. It's absolutely crazy. I think it's absurd. I think the city really needs to get its act together when it comes to storms. or a good place to start is tonight. Next slide, please. This is Marquis. It's a narrow street. This is traffic without the Kroger's. It's going to be much worse when the Kroger's comes because there's an entrance to this building on Marquis. Does this look safe to you? I think, hopefully, one of your primary considerations is public safety, and I would attest to you that adding more traffic on this narrow street is not safe. Next slide, please. This is the alley. This is on the park side of the alley. It's a 12-foot wide alley that's two-way. This is the house next to that alley. One of the entrances is a duplex. It's on the side of the alley. The only way to get to it is through the alley. In the summer, a lot of the people that rent there, they hang out there. They play cornhole in the alley most of the time, and they throw football in the alley. People bike in the alley. They walk in the alley. The alley is not just for cars. It's used by people. It's used by bikes, and that needs to be taken into consideration. There is no sidewalk in this alley. It is 12 feet wide, two-way alley. Next slide, please. This is the other side of the alley. This is the alley that they're planning on putting in the drive-thru. The drive-thru will come right in this location, right where these cars park for this office building. So these people are going to be pulling out right where the drive-thru comes in and the cars go in. Again, there is no sidewalk. The people to get to these parking spaces have to walk into the alley. the drive-thru the drive-thru to me is just bizarre I don't know how anybody could consider the drive-thru as proposed as safe it's inherently unsafe I'd like to also point out something else, if you look at where the dumpster is it's right where the alley is going to narrow to the 12 feet and it completely, there's no restrictions on them turning right so if someone wants to turn right it's completely a blind turn There's no line of sight at all on that. Next slide, please. This is not right next to the proposal. It is two doors down. And it is an apartment complex that was just converted to rental at the cost of several hundred thousand to the person who converted it. if you look at the parking space and the way it's oriented, the lights will go right into these windows of these bedrooms with absolutely zero screening. There's no screening to prevent the lights from this building and this parking lot from going in these windows. And it was just renovated and made into apartments. Next slide, please. last of all I think recently we had this is on down the street this is I think you should see how these are turning out so this is in the impact zone this is what existed before Kroger's was approved the recent change and I would like to see this is Linda Kelly's house she's lived there most of her life she grew up in this house she's still living there I'd like to see what the impact on her was. Please show the next slide. That's her reality now. What you do does make a difference. It does impact people. It impacts their lives. It dramatically impacts their lives. I've been told that her foundation has been cracked due to the construction. So, you know, in the Kroger hearing for 30 minutes, you talked to their lawyer. You didn't ask Linda Kelly how it impacted her. Well, I think you should have because it dramatically impacted her. And if you approve the drive-through as it currently proposed, you are endangering the safety of the people living in the neighborhood because that drive-through is crazy. It is crazily, absurdly unsafe the way it's designed. Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask our clerk, do you have a time still? Where am I with time? Oh, okay. I need one of those signs. It's 36 minutes and some seconds. That's great. Thank you. I scarcely know where to begin. I know a lot of time and care has gone into this project on behalf of the applicant, and on behalf of the staff. In fact, not only on behalf of the planning staff, but a lot of people who work with these complex, even small projects behind that. I thought what I should do is focus on the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, because now that there is no longer a parcel map of land uses, if I want to begin, as I do, by saying that this proposed zone change is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. We have to look at some guidance from the comprehensive plan. It used to be the first step was to go to the colors on the map. The designated use for this area in the long term in long-range planning is X, Y, or Z. We're also guided by small area plans. now that there is no land use map, we're left with the policies, the aims and the goals and objectives of the plan. And if you'll notice for the last 15 or so zone changes that have come to you in the new plan, they haven't said it matches the color on the map or it doesn't. They've said it matches the goals and objectives you set for this community and development and long-range planning. so what I'm going to do is look at those goals and objectives and I want to actually also invite you to judge for yourselves remember that you are the ones who actually wrote those goals and objectives composed and ratified them to be the guiding principles for planning and development in this community so you're in the best position to judge as our elected officials I find you myself I find you far more diverse and representative in judging these things of a wider range of constituents than those on the Planning Commission who passed it to you for approval with a recommendation of approval. So the 2013 plan recommends, and here I'm starting right with the exact goal and objective quotation that the staff used to recommend approval to Planning Commission who now recommend it to you. The 2013 plan recommends Theme A, Goal 2, Objective A, identifying opportunity for infill redevelopment and adaptive reuse that respects the area's context and design features. It recommends also A3A, enabling neighborhoods to flourish through neighborhood character preservation. It recommends also supporting the complete streets concept, where all kinds of modes of transportation are united rather than conflicting. I want to talk about two contexts of this particular location, this property. I would argue that the B1 zone makes an inappropriate incursion into a solid block front of P1 uses. And if I could have number, let's see, slide, I knew this was going to happen. Yes, B, slide B, Euclid Marquis zones. Thank you. Okay, you'll see that the purple is residential. The big sort of greenish-brown blob is the Kroger. And right next to it, you see the green, all the green along Euclid there is professional zoning. There are a few exceptions. There's some residential still on the other side of the street. There are a couple of places grandfathered in from a million years ago. And the bluish is high-density residential. So you've got a lot of residential around there. but the corridor was intensified deliberately to be P1 uses some years back. This B1 would make an incursion then into that surrounding P1 area. In fact, on three sides, it's surrounded by the P1 uses. It's only the fourth side that has the Kroger. Where does this P1 zoning come from? It comes from a long, hard-fought planning process. The 1991 Aylesford East University Small Area Plan had a plan. First, they articulated two challenges to the residential neighborhoods and the balance and harmony of the whole area. One was the encroachment of the university, and they've been very clear-sighted and far-sighted in recognizing that encroachment and threat. It's only been borne out. The other was the encroachment of the Chevy Chase Commercial District. Their recommendation was meet the need for intensifying by setting professional zoning along Euclid, but draw the line at Euclid, contain the professional boundary with generous buffering to the residential areas, and draw the line on marquee for commercial business zoning. And that's been the tradition for many, many years, and it has enabled both low-density and high-density residential to flourish and develop in the area. This is breaking that solid block front. The block houses generally low-traffic, high-wage professional services, Pretty much everybody pulls in along the alley, stays at work all day. People come and go, customers, but they're probably the vets is the highest intensity of traffic. These are offered chiefly on weekdays, these services, and they don't overburden the alley access. The B1, by contrast, offers no buffering from the higher intensity uses to both the nearby professional and the nearby residential uses. The other kind of context I want to talk about is the neighborhood context if you move beyond the narrow strip of P1 uses following that Aylesford plan. And I would add that that Aylesford plan was followed in turn by each of the land use maps successively, labeling it, indicating it for professional use in the ensuing period. So now we're left with only the goals and objectives. seems to me this goal and objective here continues exactly the aims and intents of the Aylesford Small Area Plan way back when. So for the neighborhood context, if I could have slide A, zero, the map of H1 and National Register districts, And I need to begin by saying, I'm not going to stand here and say, please save those darling little East Lake Victorians with corner porches. Tom Ebelin had a wonderful piece on porches and how important they are to our community and how gracious and lovely. But this is not in an H1 area. There is no law that binds you or even allows you to consider the historic significance of these buildings in insisting that these buildings not be destroyed. In fact, other buildings on the block have been enlarged and adapted for modern use, and these have not. They look a little neglected. What I want to talk about is not the historic structures themselves, but the larger context, the design of the neighborhoods that surround them. Can you see Euclid noodling down between a, can you see it? The blue patch at the bottom is the Chevy Chase ND1. The gold to the left of that, that'll be the same for you, good. The gold to the left of that is the Hollywood Terrace National Register District. The gold to the right of that is Aylesford, Ashland Park, and so on, National Register District. The pinkish is H1, so actually part of that area is H1 local historic overlay without being national. Now, both these designations go through local, state, and national boards of experts who approve them. There's a report written, and people establish and define and characterize the historic significance of these places. I'm not here talking about how significant they are historically. That's for the National Register. What's interesting is exactly how they characterize them. They're characterized as early 20th century streetcar suburbs. Well, we don't have streetcars any longer. We have buses. We bike, we walk, we ride the bus. These are communities that develop the kind of design they developed is really a paradigm for the sort of new urbanism we're trying to recapture today. Complete streets, jobs where people live, this kind of well-closely-knit design that's a diversity of uses. The two closest neighborhoods, Hollywood Terrace and Aylesford, are characterized as early 20th century streetcar suburbs, with ready access to jobs, retail, parkland, and professional needs via walking and mass transit. I don't think that the B1 moving across with a very auto-suburban, not streetcar suburban design, fits the context. It doesn't support the larger neighborhoods. It stands in conflict with it. It's hostile to it. People will have the cars coming into the parking lot. We'll cross bike lanes. We'll plug up the bus. What you have here is Euclid with 16,000 cars a day. The access point off Euclid with 16,000 cars a day, leading to an alley, and the other connection is a small local street. That alley cannot support whatever it is that that automobile-centric B1 suburban design with these high-traffic uses are going to bring to it. It's an alley. In fact, it's the lowest classification of street there is. I can't believe it's permissible. I would question, too, whether the applicant in offering, well, whether the city can rightly accept the donation the applicant offers to make of six extra feet of roadway for that alley to enable there to be two-way traffic. Could I have the one that's C? C. This is a detail of the development plan, the certified development plan. And the colors are mine. The rest of the plan is the applicants. I've conjectured what could be green space. The red are building envelopes, building walls. And the blue is the present, the existing property line. What they're offering in the back is a widening of, I believe, six feet on that alley that extends for the convenience of the drive-through exit, which, by the way, is very close to the street edge of the intersection. But that alley narrows down already before you go in and out the alley with your passenger cars. I find that confusing. It introduces conflict. It looks hazardous to me. and I can't see that that's an appropriate dedication of the public right-of-way for this city to accept. Certainly it is, as Mr. Barker had also said, hostile to pedestrians and the sort of life on foot that goes on in this neighborhood. The plan recommends as well infill and redevelopment that creates jobs, this is C1D, that creates jobs where people live and protecting and providing economic development land and attracting and retaining high-paying jobs. hourly wages, about half of this, if it's even about half. There's a page in your plan that talks about typical hourly wages for different jobs, the kind of jobs we want in this community. And if you think about what's there on the P1 block front of Euclid, there's a veterinarian, there's our signature equine industry, there's a design firm, there's an engineering firm. good jobs. Office space tends to have rather better jobs, such as are listed there. If you look, the preponderance of P1, of jobs housed in P1 space, tend to be better paying stable jobs. Retail and restaurant uses, such as are proposed for this building, tend to be part-time, low wage, not too permanent. Often I think you see students serving students and we're glad they can do that, but it's not the goal and objective of this community to have that kind of jobs land. Also, this is land very near the university. People who settle near the university, maybe one works at the university, it's wonderful if the other can work in the your neighborhood, jobs where you live, highly educated people with, fortunately, well-paid jobs. So jobs, this is a goal and objective we're not meeting. The plan also recommends, and this is Theme B, Goal 2, Objectives A and C, green building, sustainable and transit-oriented development, and implementing adopted environmental policy. And here, if I could have E, which is number three, canopy, okay? You just received a canopy study last June or so. And if you look in the very top corner, you will see the subject property and nearby. And red zone is hottest target for planting more trees. Now, there are two reasons for it. It's because trees are needed right there. We need this corner. Trees are needed right there, but also that particular patch is hospitable to trees. They didn't put any red zone where it's already paved solid. So here we have the irony that the canopy study in June tells you we need more trees here. If they will only take them, we'll increase our canopy. And we have a plan that has, I think I reckoned it to about 10% surface that isn't impervious once it's been developed with this building and this surface parking lot. The plan recommends as well protecting historic resources. This is Theme D, Goal 3, Objectives A, B, and C. Incentivizing renovation, restoration, and development and maintenance of historic residential and commercial structures. We've seen how exciting it is what's happening downtown with all these tiny little holes in the wall being fixed up and people think they're fun and they go there and they spend money. Incentivizing the retention, restoration, preservation, and continued use of historic sites and structures and neighborhoods. We'd like to get a piece of that on our side of town. And on our side of town, very like on Walton Avenue, if I could have, let's see, G, which is number 5, Walton Avenue, you see here a little East Lake Victorian with a corner porch in the middle of an entire row of P1 uses. It is not under historic overlay. The whole row has thriving, well-maintained, enlarged and adapted structures for business uses, for office, for professional office uses. And no one's hurting here. So it's really not the inappropriateness of the zone on Euclid, but rather a lack of maintenance, investment, and improvement of the subject properties that has caused them to be termed by the staff advice to the Planning Commission underutilized. And here I think the key thing is you have to ask yourself, what do we want to give incentive for in this community? There's a lot of talk about incentivizing growth and jobs and incentivizing this and incentivizing that. If you award an increased intensity, a higher land value, a B1 use, a B1 zone to this property, you're giving incentive to somebody to leave something in speculation kind of quietly lapsing so they can go and say, I can't use this property for anything. It's falling to pieces. I need a zone where the land is worth more. What we really need is zones that house better jobs. People take home the money from jobs. We get 80% of our revenue, over 80, in payroll tax. We need jobs land. A retail box with cars going to and fro offering conflict to the community is not a good idea. Now, I omitted to mention that there's a Kroger there, a gigantic Kroger. And it would seem that the new development is consonant with the Kroger. The Kroger is not, however, a B1 zone. The Kroger is a B6P zone. And if you read the intent you have written for the B6P zone in your zoning ordinance, it says the intent of the B6P zone is for a shopping center. you group your businesses around shared parking and shared access, and the idea is it relieves the traffic, the conflict, the congestion, because you park once and go to a bunch of places. This is on the other side of the street. It's got its own parking and its own access, and its access is going to stand in conflict with the Kroger access, and they're on that same narrow street marquee. Each of them only has one way in and out, well, two points of access. What's happening is it's entirely likely that this new development could be a parasite on the shopping center zoning, the B6P Kroger, but it can't be a member of it. It can't join the B6P. It offers conflict with it. It doesn't fit the area. It's not suitable. So I would argue that the whole proposed change of zone isn't in accord with the goals and objectives you yourself set for long-range planning and development for this community. If the proposed project is not in accord with the plan, then it rests with the applicant to say, but there's been a big change in the area since the plan was adopted. The Kroger zone change went through before the plan was adopted. This plan follows in a long tradition of the Aylesford Small Area Plan, the several zone maps, land use maps of the successive comprehensive plans, and it meets the goals, the P1 zoning meets the goals and objectives of the current plan. and this 2013 comprehensive plan follows that tradition. The applicant then, I believe, has failed to show that the proposed zoning is appropriate because it offers conflict with established uses of lesser intensity in the immediate neighborhood. I believe also the applicant has failed to show that the current zoning is inappropriate, And the requirement with Kentucky statute is that they show both things. They can't just say, well, my zone would be great. They have to also say that the existing zone is inappropriate, both things, or it doesn't count for much. I don't think anyone could say that that P1 zoning is inappropriate at that location. Look at the rest of the block. And finally, I want to say we have no urgent need in the community. There's no compelling need to have this facility with retail, fast food, a lot of chains. We have thriving small businesses in the area. A great many of them signed the petition in concern that the kind of rents charged by a big new development of this sort would bring in only just high-traffic chains, well-recognized, who can pay those kind of rents. And it would be more competition than they're really ready to face for their smaller businesses. And finally, upholding the current zoning evidently does not deprive the applicant of the full use and enjoyment of the property. Everything else on the block is thriving. I want to conclude with just a few words from Jane Jacobs. Every night I read a little from Jane Jacobs in the evening from The Death and Life of Great American Cities. And she describes, the chapter I just read, describes wonderfully exactly what I think we're facing on Euclid here and in our larger neighborhood. Our message here is keep the mix on Euclid, keep the diversity of uses right next to each other, but don't break the boundaries. As Jane Jacobs observed, a balanced mix of uses keeps people on the street across the day. It meets the needs of the widest number. It sustains jobs and businesses. It supports safe and stable neighborhoods. It's tough to attain, and it's tough to keep. Because by a natural and seemingly inevitable process, diversity of use, this varied mix of uses that makes a place so popular falls to expense. Here's how it happens. Jane Jacobs calls it the self-destruction of diversity, and she calls it almost a natural and inevitable process. A diverse, step one, a diverse mixture of uses in some place in the city becomes outstandingly popular and successful as a whole. Because of the location's success, everyone wants to be there, right? ardent competition for space in this locality develops. She calls it the economic equivalent of a fad, a fashion, a fad. Since so many want to get in, those who get in or stay in will be self-sorted by the expense. One or a few dominating uses finally emerge triumphant, but the triumph is hollow. A most intricate and successful organism of economic mutual support and social mutual support has been destroyed by this process. So our message is keep the mix on Euclid. We need the rules in planning to keep that mix. We don't want the diversity of uses to fall to expense in that way. We're seeing that self-sorting here. I just want to conclude by saying we worked hard. I wasn't here even then. We worked hard for that small area plan in Aylesford. It was built by the community and for the community. Please don't turn your back on it, and don't turn your back on your own goals and objectives. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Mr. Mundy, is there anyone signed up to speak? This would be the point at which folks can speak for three minutes. We'll do the rebuttal and cross... Is there any cross-examination? I think Ms. Clark has something she wants to put... With apologies, I omitted to introduce into the record two petition sheets I had gathered. Oh, okay. Would you introduce those? And then we can have rebuttal and cross-examination before individuals, but we do have a few individuals who've signed up to speak. So, Mr. Talbot, did you want to ask any questions of Ms. Clark? No, I don't. Okay, thank you. Mr. Sally, do you have any questions? Okay. Okay, then we have a few people signed up to speak, and this will be for three minutes each. And first, I'd like to take Mr. Graham Pohl. And if you'll come to the mic, please, and state your name and address for the record. I'm Graham Pohl. I live at 977 Fincastle Road. And I also am the managing partner of 620 Euclid Avenue, which is the office building immediately adjacent to this property. And I also have the sort of weird circumstance of having been hired by the callers to design the building that they're proposing to make. So I'm not an unbiased observer. I have to say I think that Amy's presentation was compelling, and I agree with almost everything she said except for her conclusion. In fact, I think that the proposal really does absolutely meet the kinds of intent that Jane Jacobs describes in The Life and Death of Great American Cities, which is also one of my favorite books about this issue. I want to just very quickly talk about our experience at 620 Euclid, watching those properties deteriorate, living next door to something that shows all signs of being not economically viable. the last permanent resident of those buildings had to leave because of a fire and when you're the managing partner of a building next door to a building that lit on fire and chased the resident out it raises some concern I also want to make the point that when when the callers came to us to discuss this project, they were very clear that they were looking for something really special and something that is very responsive to context, which is our bailiwick. It's what our firm does best. The same thing had happened when they developed the Saratoga Center. They came to us to help design that project. We designed the Saratoga Center on the corner of Euclid and High Street. So the scale of the building and the form of the building is going to be very much in keeping with the context. The pictures of the little houses in the neighborhood are sweet and accurate if you move up the street by several properties. The reality is that this property is in an area that is bordered by two- and three-story commercial-style buildings. There are no other single-story residential properties immediately adjacent to these three buildings. The two buildings behind them and Marquis, for example, are both multi-story contemporary or modernist buildings like our office building. So also the veterinary office that's used as a comparison, that's actually a much, much higher quality building. It's a brick building. It's actually a little bit larger scale than these. It had much more potential. So those are the points I'd like to make. And if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer. I think perhaps my position as the managing partner of 620 Euclid is most important to this issue. I look forward to this project immensely. I think it's going to be a tremendous asset. I'm not at all concerned about the alley. I use the alley every day. All of our tenants use the alley every day. It's not going to be a problem for the alley to accommodate what's being proposed, in my opinion. Thank you for your testimony. Now, I have several other folks, and I just want to be sure as you come to the podium that you were sworn in. If you weren't, will you let me know, please? First is Mr. Cosby. and if you'll state your name and address for the record and let me know if you were not sworn in hi my name is melvin cosby i live at 334 woodland avenue i've lived there for 33 years i've lived in the neighborhood this side of calumnia for about 50 years i walk down to kroger's two or three times a night and the traffic's not bad now but when that place gets put in there it's going to be a track are they going to put a traffic light in there and where all the trucks can unload and it's going to be a canyon once they put that building in there. It's going to be a canyon up Marquee. And my concerns also are, you know, we're paying so much about the sewer issue in Lexington, the storm sewers. If you look at some of these pictures, or they might have shown them earlier, all the grassy backyards and all those three little houses, that soaks up a lot of rainwater. And I'm just concerned about the traffic and the stormwater. and basically another fast food joint or another restaurant taking away business from these little established ones that have been there forever. And just three weekends ago, I walked just two streets, Oldham and Park Avenue. I got over 100 signatures. Just this afternoon, I walked through Chevy Chase and hit only businesses, and I got 42 opposing it. So I'm against it, and like I said, I've lived there all my life. and what UK has a knockdown or sawdown, they're going to try to do. They're right next to that program monstrosity. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Cosby. Kate Savage, and then after Kate will be Leanne Parker, Great House, and then Rosa Brown. Kate Savage, 619 Columbia Avenue. I'm here with a different kind of thought process. I was on the Mayor's Commission for Homelessness in the last two years, and this is a hot button. This is a very important issue for this city. We have three houses that have been allowed to just deteriorate through neglect. I don't know why code has not been notified or why they've not been on this issue. Many of us have probably been passive about calling and reporting the conditions of these properties. Out of consideration, however, that will no longer continue. These are three houses that provide seven living units for people. Even though the application on 7714 said that these three houses were unoccupied, lights on in all three at 9 o'clock in the night last Wednesday were noticed. So somebody's burning lights there. I can't say whether there's anybody living there, but they are using utilities at night. These are three houses that could be or could have been rehabbed. If they're knocked down and demolished because they're no longer viable properties, because they're so dilapidated that this city and code enforcement has failed to maintain them and insist that the owners have kept them up to code, then why don't we think creatively about putting some affordable housing there for people who could walk to their jobs, for people who could use them, low-income families who could live there and maybe work at Kroger's or at the hardware store, at the dry cleaners. There's a lot of places that they could walk. There's a bus shelter, piggy bank bus stop on the other side that could take them all over town. They could walk to UK, people who are janitors at UK, or maybe baggers, or check out people at Kroger's, the big one. They're going to have lots of people working there. Why do we need another retail space? Why are we not thinking in terms of an affordable housing complex there for low-income people who can take advantage of the jobs that are available in the neighborhood? I'm very disappointed that three more old houses are going to be demolished in my neighborhood with very little regard. Another piecemeal spot zoning that we do not need. This is a slippery slope. This is a very slippery slope. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Savage. Next is Leanne Parker, Great House. Okay, if you'll just raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that everything you say will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Okay, very good. If you'll go ahead and go to the podium and give us your name and address for the record. I am Leanne Parker, Great House. I am owner and barber at Chevy Barbershop at 442 South Ashland Avenue. And I wasn't going to speak, but I have to after hearing everyone else speak. Everyone knows I love my Chevy Chase. We love our Chevy Chase. And as a small business owner, you know, it's hard enough. And I just think it would be a shame if Mr. Collar, you know, put another restaurant in, another barbershop, another whatever. It doesn't matter. I mean, we're competing as it is. We are a unique community, we feel. And I would be completely disappointed in this council if you allowed this to go through. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Brown? Good evening. I am Rosa Brown, and I'm employed at 403 Marquis Avenue, which is right next door to the property requesting the zone change. And although everyone has spoken, and I do agree with a lot of the comments that have been made, our biggest concern naturally is the drive-through leading out onto McCall's Avenue. We have, Claire has been there for 20 years. I've worked there for seven. We have six employees in the office. We have one to four commuting in on various different days of the week. We also have a tenant on the second floor that employs two to four employees that also will be there on different days. so we have a fair amount of traffic on our own plus deliveries throughout the week, pickups throughout the week so we are very concerned about the access to McCall's Alley also if you remember the photo of the well it's our building and then there was the parking the three parking places there on McCall's that the gentleman showed with the red Jeep so if you look at the top and I've just colored it in orange and have put them our building and then the three parking lots we have that we need we absolutely need and there's just no I think it's going to be a very dangerous situation where you just pull in and you pull into those places and then like it was pointed out, you either have to walk around out into the alley to get into your car if you have a passenger and backing out with having that drive-through and the traffic coming out which will have to crisscross over and be in the way of the oncoming traffic that will be coming from Marquis Avenue and turning right there. So I do see it a very problematic situation. The alley is busy throughout the day. right now of course it doesn't show any of the parking places that we contend with that are on marquee avenue left and right as you're leaving mccall's alley whether you're turning left or right you have several parking places there that you have to inch out right now to look both ways before you make a move. And also considering, you know, hopefully a car is not trying to turn in at the same time you're trying to leave. So those are our concerns. And then the parking places, we have nine in the back, so we will definitely miss that. another thing there and I'm sure that the city can do this and at their expense whatever is decided and um there's where I've drawn the circle there where my arrow leads on to McCall's alley is a telephone pole I do think the um as you're driving and I'm sure that can be moved but as a The six feet that has been added on to that, I'm just thinking the turning radius going in and out, the tapering off into the one lane going towards park. So anyway, those are our concerns, and we really would love to keep that area in the property at professional business and not retail. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Mr. Sensenick. You're passing? Okay. Mr. Kern. I'm Jonathan Kern. I have a business at 441 South Ashland Avenue. I've been on that block of South Ashland for 39 years running my business there. I live near there. I walk all through Chevy Chase all the time. Maybe I'm just too nervous about traffic, but to me, any additional business zoning in this area is going to compound the traffic issues. I sit in my office and watch the, you know, before, well, before the Kroger's closed for construction, I would just watch that block. There's an accident there probably every week. You know, we hear the crunch of metal. And because you have multiple businesses where cars come out, turn left and right, sometimes get across each other onto Euclid. And it's quieter now because there's no customers going into Kroger's at this point right now. When Kroger's reopens, there'll be one access onto Euclid Avenue, one access onto Marquis Avenue. And we have not seen anywhere near the amount of traffic that's going to be jammed up on this small street. I've been approached by Kroger's to buy an easement through my driveway. I mean, they're so desperate to have some kind of traffic flow that, I mean, I said, are you guys insane? or what, because it makes no sense, but they know they've got a big problem. So at the very least, for a zoning change, we should wait a year to see how the Kroger traffic plays out, at the very least. Right now, what I see is Collar Properties trying to piggyback on before the Kroger effect has even kicked in. The 18-wheelers coming out onto Marquis Avenue, they'll be lucky to be able to make the turn. The drive-through drugstore window, I don't know. The aerial photos, you know, the gentleman did say they were outdated, but I don't know why he didn't put up a new photo, because the Kroger's building is, you know, the sidewalk's gone on Marquis Avenue on that side. The constructions narrowed the whole street down. The, you know, that photo didn't cover the impact of what that building is going to have on Marquis. Also, Keller Properties didn't mention their other restaurant that's there in the neighborhood that they have trouble keeping a tenant for whatever reason. I don't know, but we have empty restaurant space in Chevy Chase right now. Now, the safety issues are just the biggest ones to me. I mean, if you have a business there, a drive-through window would add to the nightmare. And so I would just recommend keeping it professional zoning at least for a year. They can revisit it, you know, in the future after all the other traffic issues have been settled. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Kern. Was there anyone who didn't have an opportunity to sign up who has not spoken and would like to? All right. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Salley, as the staff member, do you have any rebuttal for anyone who spoke? No, ma'am. Thank you. No. All right. Mr. Talbot, do you have any rebuttal or question of anyone who spoke? Yes. First, I'd like to ask. Can you go to the microphone, please? Thank you. As rebuttal witnesses, I'd like to have first Tony Barrett and then second Steve Collar. Okay. Did you have any questions of any of the opponents? No. Thank you. Okay. Tracy, is this the time for his witnesses? For his rebuttal? Rebuttal? Yes. Okay. I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners, landscape architect and planner for the development plan. There were a lot of development plan related issues that were raised here, and I just wanted to take a minute to kind of redress some of those. Our parking lot off of Euclid Avenue aligns with Lafayette Avenue across the street. and it is a two-way parking lot, so not everyone who enters the project has to leave McCall's Alley. So you can pull in and pull back out to Euclid Avenue. So I wanted to make that clarification that that would pretty much limit a lot of the traffic on McCall's Alley by that option. The McCall's Alley was widened at the traffic engineer's recommendation to accommodate any development and to assist with the drive-through. It's currently a 12-foot alley, two-way, the whole way. When you come down here, you can only go left. So there's not a big incentive to come from our property down this way unless you live in the neighborhood. So if you come down the alley, you have to turn left on park, which takes you further into the neighborhood. So your inclination, if you need to leave through the alley, is you're going to turn left out onto Marquis. The, we widened it just for the very reason that some of the folks spoke to provide a better turning movement here to, if someone is coming out and someone is coming in, there's space there to do that. We've pulled the drive-through back as far as practical so that we would have adequate separation between the two intersections. Uh, stormwater management, uh, will be addressed at the final development plan and, and with the, uh, construction documents, uh, we would anticipate that any, uh, required stormwater management would be addressed as a, uh, below grade, uh, basin, uh, under the parking lot. And, uh, and, uh, of course, stormwater, uh, water quality would be addressed, uh, with volume and quality at the same time in accordance with the engineering manuals that have been in effect for 14 years now. So that's all I have to say unless there's any questions specific to me. I'd like to ask you one more question. Thank you very much. Would you just briefly discuss the interplay between B1 and B6P zones and why they're compatible? Well, the B6P is, of course, that's a business zone. It's a shopping center zone. This is kind of a unique, I think, B6P in that it's one tenant, one building, one use. Typically, B6P is a shopping center with multiple users. This is a little bit different one. I think the B1 next to the B6P helps make the B6P function as more of a shopping center. So you can have multiple uses within the B6P. as you can in the B1. B1 allows professional office in addition to retail. So it's not a total change from the P1. It's just expanding the potential uses in the B1 or in the neighborhood. So I don't know if that was what you were looking for, but that's how I would approach how the B6P and the B1 in this relationship kind of play off of each other fairly well. Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett. Did you have other rebuttal, Mr. Talbot? Yes, I'd like Steve Collar to speak. Okay. Steve Collar, 840 East High Street is my office. I live in the near neighborhood. I think the issue is mainly an issue of trust. We have been in Chevy Chase for 30 years, have developed the majority of the new properties there. I have planted more trees in Chevy Chase in the last 25 years than everybody else in that neighborhood. And we have no intention of building anything that would not enhance or make the neighborhood better. The truth of the matter is we believe that our tenants will thrive off of the Kroger traffic and that I can't tell you scientifically, that Ms. Clark probably would have a scientific answer, but I don't have one, that a large percentage of our customers will come from the same Kroger people who will park in one place and walk over and shop. I would tell you that having been in this area for a long time, I have watched those houses, and I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. If we don't do these houses, a year from now, Kroger will be here doing their fuel station on that property. And I tell you that what we'll do will be a high-quality thing. Graham Poles organization would not design anything that was not appropriate, and we guarantee and assure the community they can depend on us to do something that will make the community better. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Caller. Mr. Talbot, do you have more rebuttal? I just reserve the right to make a closing statement. Yes, you'll have that opportunity, yes. Now, this would be the time for closing summation by the opponent. Do you have any closing summation? And I'll ask our attorney, do we have a time limit on this? We did not set any time limits, but you can put a reasonable time limit on it if you want to. Okay. Does counsel have an idea of what reasonable time limit you would like for the closing summations? We've heard five minutes or... Okay. Do I have a motion, please? Any discussion? All those in favor of 10-minute summation by each side, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, there you go. Thank you. You're very generous with your time, and it's a terrible night weather-wise. and I really appreciate you giving us a hearing. There are a lot of serious issues with the proposed development plan. Your job is to just look at the big picture. We don't know where the trucks will unload yet. Will they be standing on marquee while the Kroger trucks come along beside them and noodle into the back entrance there? There's no mention of freight on the whole site. For a 10,000-square-foot building with retail and restaurant, that's a problem. The alley is a huge and serious problem. You can see for yourself, could I have the detail of the site plan again from the foam drive? Others have gone into it at length. I would urge you to ask your traffic engineers, can this work? It's not a question of whether, by my reckoning, they are three cars too short to match their floor space area, which by mine they are. Two of the spaces are only 13 1⁄2 feet long, and that's a smart car for a smart development, for smart growth. These are petty details. But the big picture is, is it cramming? I think there's cramming at the Kroger next door, so the larger environment is already at the edge of what we hope it can manage comfortably. Here's another one right next to it. Yeah, they'll get walking traffic from Kroger, but they'll also have their own accesses onto that alley. It's too low-grade a street. I can think of a lot of professional uses we're actually hurting for. I walked along that Walton area with P1 uses. We could use some psychologists. We've got to be crazy to live here, right? We could use dentists and doctors, orthodontists. I have to go way out alumni for a dentist. There's insurance, real estate. there are more professional uses that this area would be happy to use. This is a one-story building. It's a sprawling building. It's not compact, contiguous, mixed-use, sustainable growth, all the things the staff said. The staff began to say that, matching it with our very high goals and objectives. When it was a two-story building, it had seven units of residential above. That's a good thing for this neighborhood, to have mixed use, to have a variety of residences of different sizes, shapes, and income levels. The B1 killed the residences because it's too high intensity. Who's going to live on top of a Cane's Chicken? There were four places I've heard mentioned in public meetings by the applicant. The first one was Cane's Chicken. Do we need chicken fingers? let's not sell this land so cheap. If you want mixed use one here, keep the professional, enlarge the buildings, tear them down and build commodious buildings for a diverse mix of uses. But aren't we selling this awfully cheap, 10% permeable from what's now maybe 40% lot coverage. I want to take just a little time to go over suggested conditions. We hope you vote this down. If you choose to approve it, it was mentioned that if we don't have retail and restaurant here approved tonight, a year from now there will be gas pumps. Well, guess what? Gas pumps are not among the uses planning commission recommended to you prohibiting. You have some draft conditions with little yellow notes and everything. These are just draft. I'm not a lawyer. You need to make them right, have your staff make them the way they should be. But I'd like to go through them very briefly. First, there's that question about freight. Can you say there shall be loading and unloading on the lot, or am I not understanding where that happens? Okay. The following shall be conditional uses. I think they should be, we think they should be allowed as conditional uses. Indoor theaters, three-screen movie theaters are on there at this point. But conditional, you could set limits. Sidewalk cafes, accessory to a restaurant, they're a buy-right use now. You've got 15 feet along the front and 10 feet along the side for yard. It's highly trafficked cafe. It really needs some scrutiny. It should happen, but it should happen as a conditional use. The following are already recommended for prohibition. They're in the motion that is before you, A through G. So I won't touch them except to say academic schools are prohibited, but trade schools are not. You can have a welding school, but you can't have a middle school. Drive-through facilities are the key one. We think there is no room for a drive-through on that site. It's just an intensity and traffic and conflict. It's not safe. Parking structures and lots as a principal use. A parking structure, huge mass and scale, looming. A parking lot, that's what we're trying to get away from. Self-service car washes. There are documented stormwater issues. That's not appropriate. Miniature golf, arcades, pinball. This is, I guess, video games. Real noisy, late night, jittery on the street. Kind of tough on high-density housing in the very near neighborhood. If you want to have people living here, you have to keep it pleasant for them and tranquil. Truck rentals, that's a big thing. So those are things we would recommend prohibiting. And finally, the form-based neighborhood business project. It's true that there's also a form-based project in the P1, but it's limited to P1 uses. In a B1 zone, it's B1 uses. This is a use that removes the cap on size for the zone. it's capped at 40,000 or 60,000 for B1 otherwise. And this says no cap. It removes, by and large, nearly all the dimensional restrictions about yards and things. You could have a huge, huge, huge thing there if you only had an acre to work with. Well, we don't have an acre, but my gosh, you can consolidate lots without even going before a public meeting, and then you've got an acre, and then who knows what you have. This needs to be prohibited. And finally, the buffering. I polled the neighbors about which things they were concerned about. Definitely the access to the property via McCall's alley. How about limiting it to trash and employee parking, which is in large part what the others use it for. They also don't have that intensive a use if they have a customer or a client. It's not really causing a traffic problem. On the chart here, too, I want you to think for a minute. You're coming along Euclid that has one through lane, 16,000-plus cars a day. That's a 2007 count. It's got one through lane. Okay, so you're turning in to use these wonderful new businesses. and someone's pulling out, you're waiting, right? There's just about a car's width for you to straddle the little green patch, the sidewalk, put your nose into the parking lot and wait. What about the stacking for the drive-through? There's supposed to be five cars stacking behind the menu board. I don't know where the menu board is, maybe where that tree's supposed to be in that corner there. so there's five cars stacking behind there well maybe there's a sixth or seventh now again the entire lot is bottled up there's no circulation this is cramming these retail and restaurant uses of fast food high intensity there's just not room for them in this neighborhood in this context on a corner lot and I see that my time is up. Thank you. You can read these other signage and lighting concerns. There's a lot a lot of concern that it won't be pleasant or right for neighbors who've lived there just forever if there are glowing signs. Thank you very much Ms. Clark. Now it's time for summation by the petitioner. Thank you. First I want to begin by thanking all of you all for being here tonight. It's nice to have an opportunity to be in a civil setting and have an open, fair discussion like this. I think that the most, one of the better points I heard from the opposition was, why another retail development? You know, that was, I think Ms. Savage said that. Why another retail development in Chevy Chase? And I think it's simply because of demand. The callers have been developing property in Chevy Chase for over 30 years. They have done high-quality projects. They see this as another opportunity. The current condition of these buildings is the current condition of the buildings. It's not because of our neglect, color properties neglect. It's not because of your neglect or anyone's neglect, except probably the owner's. But the owner's not here. We're trying to make this a situation that's better for the neighborhood, to put these to a viable use for everyone's benefit. But if a dentist would like to go into the development, as Ms. Clark just requested, we could rent space to her dentist. This space will be open to whoever wants to be there for whatever purpose. We began this process with an application, worked very closely with the staff, worked very closely with Mr. Baird. And we ended up with a recommendation of the staff for approval to the Planning Commission. and then by agreeing to the prohibited uses, we ended up with a unanimous recommendation from your planning commission. All of the concerns about the alley, the drive-through, were thoroughly discussed at the commission hearing. These were resolved with traffic. They were resolved with the staff, the staff satisfaction. Mr. Barrett's gone into great detail about that. Can you put the development plan back in? Yeah. Thank you. So to start with, we're talking about .588 acres, a relatively small tract of land that is at a very busy corner. I submit to you, this is a perfect corner for retail development because you're capturing existing traffic. The kinds of tenants we're looking for here will be people who are already in the neighborhood who want to go to a restaurant, maybe a fitness place, maybe a game stop, things of that nature. So this is not a traffic generator of new traffic. The Kroger store will be generating the traffic. We will hope to be just capturing the existing traffic for this. The standard for you all to consider and the basis for the Planning Commission's recommendation was that the zone change from P1 to B1 is compatible with the 2013 plan. The plan recommends compact, contiguous, mixed-use, sustainable development. You heard Mr. Collard get up and talk about how he intends to do a very high-quality development. He's hired the neighbor, Mr. Pohl, to help him with that. Mr. Polis, you all may well, is well known for doing nice developments. The plan recommends identifying opportunities for infill redevelopment and adaptive reuse. Well, if you look at these three small houses in their current condition on this lot, it's a perfect place for infill. If we're going to be compact and redevelop things, I submit this is the property to do it on. We've agreed with the prohibited uses that the Planning Commission imposed on us, One of which is an automobile service station. So Kroger, you know, could not come back in the future and ask for a fuel station here because it would be prohibited under item D of the recommendations. Any other? I'm going to close that. And again, thank you for your service and ask you to approve this as recommended by the Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Talbot. Okay. At this point, the council will ask questions. And council members, you may ask questions of the staff, Mr. Sully, the petitioner, or the opponent. And before we do that, some council members would like to take a five-minute break. so we'll just recess and break for five minutes. If you can be back here by 7.10, Council Members, that would be great. to rebut any new evidence that council members have brought up. Okay, so if you have questions, please log in. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess this would be for all three, the staff, the petitioner, and the opponent. And I think one of the issues that concerns me is the stormwater issue. And I guess from staff, if you would first say how that is addressed, and then I'll let the other two answer that. The development plan that's been approved does not show a separate detention basin or specific stormwater improvement. Generally, the engineering manuals do not... require a mandatory facility on a site less than an acre. I think Mr. Barrett mentioned that at the time of the final development plan there may be a requirement or an offer to do stormwater improvements but there's nothing inherent in the engineering manuals for a site of this size to mandate one. I guess going back and looking at what's being presented and changing that zone, it appears that you're going to have a lot more impervious surface on that. But we don't require any with how it is presently? Or you're saying our regulations don't? The regulations don't require an improvement like a basin on a site less than an acre. This is about six-tenths of an acre. And then I think, Mr. Barrett, you did kind of address this, I think, in your comments. Could you refresh me on what you had said? And what the plan is? We would do what's required by the engineering manuals. The water quality will be required for separating oils and sediment before it goes into the system. We'd have to evaluate the drainage shed where it's draining and the facilities that serve this piece of property for. We could really make a determination as to how we would address that. If stormwater quantity were required to be retained, it would be in a basin below the parking lot. And that would only be required if it was an acre or more? That's generally the requirement, yes, unless there's a documented stormwater issue in the area that we could help resolve. But otherwise, if there's not a, you know, we heard some speculation or evidence in the fellow's basement whether or not this is a contributing property to the watershed he's specifically in, I don't know offhand, but that would have to be addressed. And that time would come with the final development plan and during the construction documents. Did you make some comments earlier about something that you're going to do underground there or that you anticipated doing under the parking lot? Yeah, if we do a stormwater management basin, that would be for, well, a retention basin. That is a volume controlling element. It would be under the parking lot. If we did water quality, then it could be in the storm sewer system itself with a structure like what's called a storm scepter or something like that. That's a manufactured product like a grease trap kind of concept. But as it's planned right now, you're not planning on doing the retention? We haven't gotten that far. Like I said, we have to evaluate the drainage shed where the water flows and the system that it enters into the site or where it leaves the site and the system that it enters. Okay, thank you. And I think the petitioner had also. My basement flood, my neighbor's basement flood. It's documented. The people in the city know it's flood. The current standard is they do nothing. That's the current standard. and he's going to live up to the current standard that's not good enough. I would like to hear from the neighbors. Yes, certainly. Yes, sir. Addressing the stormwater issue, like I said, I've lived there a long time. If you can remember back in the 90s, people were kayaking down Oldham Avenue and there was a big whirlpool. In fact, there's an ancient creek that runs from behind Kroger's all the way down behind the Student Center in the UK. It's a creek that's been there forever. It's always had flooding there, and it'll be flooding in the future. Thank you. A couple of comments. I did my best about a year ago to figure out how stormwater works and the allotments and so on. My impression, first of all, I should say I requested that someone request that a staff member be here who could be competent to speak to that because it is a tricky site, and I think you do need professional advice, and it ain't me. But my impression is they kind of redistricted the stormwater burdens. They have these watersheds and sewer sheds, And I think they just kind of redrew the boundaries of it so that some of this particular area is no longer exactly in an overburdened area. They kind of made a new corner of the map for it. I'd invite you to look at your goals and objectives because here what you're doing is deciding whether the zone change is appropriate. And one of the goals and objectives is implement existing environmental policy. and I can't see them because my glasses are so poor. Can you see the things that are starred? All of these things are important. Canopy, tree canopy, does a lot to filter water and slow it down and clean it up. If there isn't something attached to this zone change that says you have to put in a basin or something, What you're seeing is 90% impervious surface, where now it's just extraordinary. I think there's 40% lot coverage now. It's a green haven. This is not progress. This is not the direction we want to go with our community. We need to make the most of our resources and build up. This is a one-story building. tree canopy you can have swales you can have water tend to lower areas that are permeable and gradually it runs off there but you've got to have some permeable areas for that and the other thing to consider is heat effect you're going to have all that paved and built surface heat's going to be bouncing off it That's another environmental concern. I'm done. Okay. Thank you. The stormwater issue is one that would be the same issue whether this priority remained P1 or B1. If someone proposed to do a new P1 development on these six-tenths of an acre, the same regulations would apply. We're at the point in this project where before we can go forward and find out the answer to the question about stormwater, we have to get a zone change to be able to do that. But the amount of impervious surface won't change in the development, whether it's P1 or B1. In other words, a new office building will emit the same amount of stormwater, have the same kind of issues. And they are well addressed in your engineering staff, your engineering ordinances, and so forth. and we'll have to comply with all those, and we very much intend to. And that's the point we'll address, because we haven't even been asked to address it yet, but that's when we will address it. Thank you very much. This is something additional and different. B-1 lot coverage. According to stormwater, the question was stormwater. B-1 lot coverage, and Mr. Salee, I'm sure, can get it straight, I think is 100%, but P1 lot coverage is 35%. The building footprint is restricted to 35%. The height is higher, and the ratio of floor space to lot area is greater. So you can pack more in P1 by stacking than B1 allows. And maybe you could ask Mr. Sully to get the dimension straight, but I think B1 is practically 100% lot coverage building footprint if you want it. I mean, they're not doing 100%. And then the intensity of the use and the parking it requires that means paving, it's tough. Thank you. Did that conclude your questions, Mr. Ellinger? It does. I guess that just opened up one last one that I asked Mr. Sallet if he wanted to comment on that last issue. Ms. Clark's correct. The B-1 does not have a limitation as to how much building can cover it. The P-1 does. Of course, there are other impervious surfaces, such as the parking lot and sidewalks as well. So those are generally unrestricted in both zones. Okay, thank you. Council Member Myers. Mr. Sally. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Earlier, the opposition made a comment that at some point, two lots could be combined, that it would be an acre and they wouldn't have to come back and get approval to do that. Is that correct? And if I've misstated, could you restate what you said if I've misstated you? I'm not sure I understand the question about a one-acre dimension. Can you come up, please? She made a comment earlier about what has to be done or not has to be done based on it being one acre. I was asking for a prohibition on what's called a form-based special project, which is brand new to the P1. It's part of the bundle of B1 legislation that came through last year. It says that if you have an acre or more, actually, I think I have the, do you want me to get the, if you have an acre or more, you can do a form-based project, and it's got all kinds of rules and requirements. Basically, you have to come up with a design that you can argue fits the context of the neighborhood. And if it does, the dimensional restrictions on yards and stuff are just gone. And the issue is this. Okay, so we've got a piece of an acre here. You know, maybe gross, it's almost three-quarters of an acre, two-thirds of an acre. If the next-door neighbor sold the property, what I was saying could happen without a public hearing is I believe the two lots can be consolidated and made into one without a public hearing. Okay. Okay. Mr. Sally. Can you clarify that for us? I can try. The lot size, potentially under her scenario, could exceed an acre. However, the business zoning, the B1 zone is only six-tenths of an acre, and the only adjacent B1 zoning is across Euclid Avenue. So there's no scenario under the zoning ordinance for what you're looking at this evening where you can exceed an acre without another future zone change. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Kern, could you show us where your business is on one of these maps? I'd appreciate that. Your comments, if we could show a map of the, I can't tell you which map. My business faces South Ashland Avenue. Do you want to put it on the Elmo, please? The projector. Right across the street from the dish and the barbershop. And I'm next door to the previous video store, which... Okay, okay, good. One building away from Euclid Avenue. the back of my property looks out at the front of the Kroger's building. Okay, yeah. That's it right there. Right there, okay, good. And so there is a small street there that connects South Ashland with the Kroger property? Close to your business? There used to be. There used to be, okay. Across Lewis Malloy and Rosenberg's property. That's what I needed to know. Thank you very much. A couple of other questions. Let's see. Mr. Barrett, if you would, please. What are the plans for the trees that are on that lot now? The existing trees are in the location of the current property lines between the houses, which would be in the middle of the proposed development, so they will be taken down. They'll be raised, and we're replacing with trees in the parking lot and around the edges. I understand. All right, a couple of other questions. We're saving six trees on the line. Six trees, okay. Okay. All right, fine. Would you go over the ingress and egress for the parking lot? Not talking about the drive-in, but just getting in and out. If I could just see the way you can get in and out of that parking lot. Okay. This is Euclid Avenue. Yep. This is the entrance to the parking lot. Right. You can go in or out. Park. You can leave. Okay. Okay. You could enter or leave on the alley. Okay. Or you could enter from the alley. Okay. I guess you could come in this way as well. All right. Okay. Good. That's what I needed to know. It seems like there was one other question. Hang on. The other thing that I wanted to know is, you might be able to help me with this, or maybe Mr. Salih could do that, but I'll ask it, and then we'll see who can answer. I want to know the Kroger development. What access do they have to Marquee Avenue, and who has access to that? Okay. Okay. Turn it. There you go. That's right. That's right. Okay, this, uh, Okay, can you see the light when I turn it on? Yes. Okay, the yellow outline here is the existing Kroger building. Okay. Slow down. There you go. Okay, got that. Okay, this is our building. Yep. Here's McCall. McCall, right. Euclid. Yep. I understand all that. Marquee. Yep. Here's the entrance to Kroger on Marquee. All right. Is that customers or trucks? Well, it could be either. It's both? Yeah. Okay. There's a drive-thru back there, too. This is the drive-thru. The ramp goes up to the parking lot, and the drive-thru circles around, I believe. Okay. So cars can come in off of Marquee. And is that the normal delivery for trucks to come in off of Marquis? I've deferred a bill. I don't know. I'm proud to remember this from our previous discussion about Kroger's. The loading dock for the Kroger is here. Yeah, okay. So we believe that many of the trucks will come in back up and then leave in this direction. Okay. Here's the Euclid Avenue entrance here. Right. So it'll have Marquis and Euclid. Okay. Okay. I'm so sorry, but just people with a microphone, because this doesn't pick up people from the audience. Sorry. All right. For now, that's my questions. Thank you all very much. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, and I want to thank everybody for being here and my fellow council members for being here on a snowy Monday night. First of all, I want to say this is from the Division of Water Quality. The existing in relation to this development, it's in relation to that area. The existing sanitary sewer in the area has been identified as having capacity issues. Currently, four in and eight in gravity sewers serve residences on Marquis and Park. Residences in the area regularly experience basement backup overflows and odor problems. Um, marquee, uh, TB5102A is a capacity assurance program surcharge violation and remedial measures. So this area is impacted, uh, between marquee and Kentucky. So that, that's, again, not in relation to this project, but what's going on and what you saw. Um, the other thing I wanted to say is I have, uh, I really liked what Mr. Kern, I believe it was, had to say about we don't know what the impact of that very, very, very large Kroger is going to be both with sanitary and stormwater issues as well as traffic. and congestion. It is, I think, certainly the overview map that Mr. Sally showed us, the aerial view, wasn't a fair representation of what's there now. What's there now goes all the way to the sidewalk on Marquis and on Euclid. And there is a drive-thru in addition to the loading dock that's there will be used at that marquee drive-thru. One of the things that I have a lot of heartburn about this is having it be a drive-through restaurant there when we already have so much congestion. And this Kroger, the Kroger on whatever Ramsey, whatever road that is, over there, about Christ the King, it's not going to be there anymore. So, I mean, we're going to have people from a much larger area coming to this Kroger. So it's likely not to, excuse me. so when Mr. Kern said why don't we wait a year and see what the impact of this Kroger is going to be on this area both traffic safety to pedestrians safety to vehicles and bicyclists before we do something else and then also one of the things that was said is the parking, there'll be plenty of parking at Kroger's. I'll guarantee you that Bluegrass Towing will be hired to tow away cars that are parked there and not using the Kroger parking lot. That's not going to be public parking. It's going to be parking for Kroger. Um, so, um, if this were a development that did not have a drive-through, that certainly would be somewhat better. But I think there are several things that we need to consider. And I see the alley, and I don't understand. It's like they're going to make it six feet wider, and maybe you all can talk to me about this, up to a point. And then it will go back to the 12-foot or whatever it is. So what happens when cars are coming from Kentucky, because Marquee and Euclid may be quite congested, or a truck is unloading for your business on Marquee, even where it's widened, that seems like it's really not very plausible. Can somebody answer what you all? Because it's not even, it doesn't look like it even goes to the end of that parking lot where you're giving it six feet wider on Macaulay Avenue or whatever it's called. Could you repeat your question, please? The question is, for 20 points, it looks like the alley is being widened by six foot from Marquis, not even to the end of your parking lot. So there are a lot of businesses and a lot of people that use that alley further down. What's going to happen when you have somebody trying to turn around or you have, where do you plan for your loading and unloading of those big, big, giant trucks with stuff in it? The McCall's Alley is being widened to six feet to this location, and then it tapers back at the end of our property. What happens to McCall's Alley beyond that is exactly the condition McCall's Alley is in today. We don't have any control over that. So I don't know. It's a 12-foot alley. It's been a 12-foot alley. It's currently a 12-foot alley. and we're improving the alley across our property frontage. So that's what we control, and that's the improvements that we're proposing. What was your other question? The other question was... The deliveries. Deliveries would have to use the parking lot and would be scheduled typically as in off-peak hours and be requested to do that as they're done in multiple retail areas. Thank you. I think, am I out of time? You had a question or a comment about the sanitary sewer, and I'd like to submit this. This is an exhibit from the Division of Water Quality Capacity Tracking, and it identifies that this sewer area has a capacity of 37,000 gallons per day, and we are proposing that we would use about 3,600 gallons per day in this area so we would fit within the available capacity as identified on the map online. Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett. Did you have another question, Councilmember Lawless? I'll come back. You'll come back. Thank you. I'll hold my question until after Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess my first question is, I'm not sure to whom. I have a question about the fact that it's listed as a one-story building, but there's retail and then apartments. And so how is that just, I guess, construction verbiage that it can be one story with two stories seemingly? And maybe I just didn't, I mean, I did read through all the different renderings of this proposal. It's a one story building for just retails, what we propose. There'll be no apartments. Okay. That was in a previous iteration, I suppose. I see. Okay. And then, Bill, did you want to weigh in there? I was just going to add the initial proposal was for two stories. That's where I got confused. And then there was comments, too, about the 25 feet and 35 feet. So that's why I just wanted to make sure I understood. And then I think Mr. Barrett, again, there was mention of removal of trees and some trees you're keeping. And then how many, can you tell us, are you replanting? Approximately. And I know that you're not held to it, I suppose, or any of that. But the one picture that was up earlier, can someone put that back up with just the red squares and the green outline space? Is all the green area that is outlined on that map, is that proposed green landscaping and buffering screening? Yes, that one. Is the green on this map your screening, buffering, landscaping plan or area? Yes. largely, and we also have a landscape easement along the Ashland building there that we're utilizing as well, and that's where the six trees that are being saved are along that buffer area between the Ashland building and our parking lot. Okay. The tree protection ordinance requires us to have a specific canopy that we are adhering to. Business is 10 percent. It will be on here. 20 percent. Coverage required 20 percent, and we're meeting that. and that does not include the six trees that are being proposed to be preserved. We were only showing the additional trees that we were proposing along the perimeter and in our parking areas here as well. So we were taking a conservative approach and just identifying the trees that we were going to replant or plant in our yards area along Marquis and Euclid Avenue. Okay. Regarding the drive-thru, I guess what is the plan or the chances if traffic backs up in that drive-thru? I mean, I guess you don't know what business is going to locate there, whether it be one single-lane drive-through or is there room for a two-lane drive-through? What would be the plan for if traffic backs up, you know, as often does at a lot of drive-through? There would not be room for two drive-throughs without altering the development plan significantly. Right now we're queuing into our own parking lot, and that will be a balance between keeping the other tenants happy. I think the callers can probably address this better than I. But their interest would be a tenant in that location that would not cause undue impact of the stacking, that it would impact the other tenants in the building. so they're going to be cautious about the intensity of the drive-through use that that particular user for the drive-through would be having. Because if it backed up, it would... A lot of other parked cars, which I've seen happen in lots of... And frequently when you're looking through a drive-through, if there's a long line at the drive-through, you skip it. You go to the next opportunity or make an alternate plan. Okay. I think that answers my questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Selle, just a couple. As it relates to stormwater and sanitary sewer, are we provided the opportunity to turn this zone change down because they're not provided for correctly? Or do they have to provide for them in a certain way? Well, generally, zone changes themselves don't generate sewage. It's the development that would. And kind of the same thing with the stormwater. The thing that has gone through my mind several times during tonight's hearing is the development plan that's before you could be very close to compliant to a P1 zone versus a B1 zone. So the issue is the sanitary sewer and stormwater are going to be there whether the zoning is B1 or whether it remains P1. If these three structures aren't replaced and additional parking is placed on these properties and so forth. Well, kind of the conversation point I've gotten from testimony is that once the zone change in whatever form it does or doesn't take place happens, there would be some sort of a conference to see about the need for a system either to meet either sanitary or storm. Is that part of the working order once something passes us? It usually is, yes. As a final development plan works its way through the planning commission process, now that the capacity assurance program is in place, there is a closer review as to whether the bank that the property is in has any capacity issues or whether the improvements have been done to increase the capacity in the bank. Likewise, I think as Mr. Barker said earlier in the evening, if there is a documented problem in the area, there can be stormwater required even on a property less than an acre to help abate that problem that's known in the area. Would it be out of the ordinary for us to mandate that at this point in the conversation? I was trying to think earlier in the evening if I could ever recall a conditional zoning restriction requiring a stormwater facility, and I can't tell you that I can ever recall the council requiring that. Conditional zoning is limited to uses and buffers. Understood. And it's hard to envision how a buffer could include a basin. There might be a creative way for use restriction to include that. I can't think of one off the top of my head. Okay. Let's turn to a different area for a minute then. In the notes from the hearing or the case review, it says the staff is not opposed to the intensification of land use at this corner. However, the manner in which it is to be accomplished is vitally important. Has it been accomplished in a way, in your own estimation, that makes it viable? Yes, sir. When this development plan was submitted over the one previous, that turned the tide for the staff to enable us to recommend approval. The previous plans had greater setbacks from the two streets. The building wasn't as oriented to both streets the way they are now in this depiction. And so that changed greatly the staff's view of the development. And then outline one more for me. Although the petitioner has not requested a variance, at least one may be necessary for the proposed application to be approved by the Planning Commission. Was that not the case when it passed them? It was not the case when it passed the Planning Commission. This revision put the building to the minimum setback along Marquis, and it put it within five feet of the office building, the two-story office building further down Euclid, both of which comply with the B-1 requirements. so no variance was necessary for this plan. All right. I think that's all I have for you, but thank you on all that. Then there was a group of items that were under discussion. I think you all may have taken care of them. I would just like to know you had a discussion about the proposed dumpster location, and I guess came to a happy medium there. You discussed proposed access to marquees, and I think we see that by what is evidenced here. And then you discussed building, and what is this word? F-E-N-E-S-T-R-A-T-I-O-N, fenestration, along Euclid Avenue. Define that one for me, if you would. Probably I'd have Mr. Pohl answer this question. I think the pared-down description of that is the amount of openings in a wall, either for doors or windows, but certainly I stand to be corrected on that. It's fenestration. Yes. So to me, I kind of, I didn't understand, which is why I asked. So in the final analysis, does this proposed structure, I guess it faces marquees. It doesn't really face Euclid. Would that be correct? Or however we want to use the term facing, because Kroger doesn't really face Euclid. It faces the back of Mr. Kern's building. And at the explanation at the Planning Commission meeting, the concern was, are we addressing Euclid Avenue from a streetscape perspective? All right. And yes, we anticipate that Euclid Avenue will be a front of the building, as will the parking lot side will be a front of the building. And we anticipate that a portion of the marquee side will be storefront character. and so it won't be a we won't be putting a blank wall on Euclid or on Marquis but it will address the streetscape architecturally. And I guess you kind of answered another question I mean obviously from this picture the orientation of the parking lot that would be where the front doors would be because you're going to park and go in right there it would strike me. Well there'll be front doors along here and as well as one or two along Euclid Avenue. And then you may not be the one to speculate on this, but what kind of use, what's the thought process behind having a drive-through at this location? My name is Brett Caller. I work at 840 East High Street as well. I do not live in Lexington any further, but I'm glad to be here today. Drive-through was the primary question. The reason for it today, retailers that we're talking to, be it banks, credit unions, ice cream shops, pizza stores, require a drive-thru, many of them. We're going to be careful about who we lease that space to in that we don't want, to your point, impact the parking lot. We don't want a drive-thru to back up. That wouldn't make sense for the development. It'll make for unhappy tenants. So did I address your question? So the specific potential uses that you've been having over time with. Yeah. All right, thank you. And then also from the meeting, Mr. Barker stated the area residents would like to propose a different set of restrictions from those set forth by the staff, adding extended stay hotels. I don't believe that this has room to have an extended stay hotel on it. A refueling station, and likewise, I don't think that's an opportunity or anything that would create activity late night. All right. And then has there been any conversation about freestanding signage as was brought up at the hearing, evidently? Or I guess what would be the signage package for this potential building? You're going to have a sign on it? How are people going to know what's in it? Got a sign on this place? What's it going to be like? There would be a small monument sign that would front on Euclid Avenue. Okay. Identifying the tenants. One sign on Euclid Avenue. Yes, and then a building-bounded sign that's what's under the ordinance. All right, very good. and then in the conversation originally the staff had wanted one of the prohibited uses to be medical and dental offices clinics and laboratories and I noticed the planning commission eliminated that can someone enlighten me as to why they eliminated that specific prohibition The planning commission at their meeting in August could not get a majority to agree on the conditional zoning restrictions. They looked at all of them recommended by staff. They had heard from the neighbors, and they also were concerned about the drive-through, whether or not to restrict that use. the staff felt that it was a fairly high traffic generating restriction or use and so it ought to be restricted for that way i think the simple answer is the majority of the planning commission did not necessarily agree with that i think also kind of in line with miss clark's comments earlier some of the commission members thought that the need for dental office or a doctor's office at at this location would also serve the nearby residents. So that's my take on why they did not restrict it. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You are welcome. We'll skip down to Council Member Henson, who hasn't spoken yet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, looking at this that's in our packet, It looks like directly behind this property is apartments. Is that right? In close proximity, directly behind this property, you see the P1 Y. Right. I believe that was the office building that Ms. Brown discussed earlier. And then directly behind that, I think you saw a photo of that building earlier in the evening, or at least the rear of that photo, rear of that building. It is a multi-story building that used to be a professional office, and just a few years ago was rezoned R5 to allow it to be converted into apartments. Okay. So the R5 property is residential. Then the townhomes on Marquee are directly, again, continuing back from Euclid in the R4 zone that you see there. I have a concern with the drive-thru in that close to residential properties, they can be a nuisance sometimes, depending on the hours of operation and with noise. So I guess I'm not particularly in favor of the drive-thru for multiple reasons. So that's why I was asking about the residential. And also, I can remember two similar zone changes in my district from P1 to AB1. And both of them proved to be negative. But that's in my district. and I don't know what we could do to prevent that from happening. You know, you're given this elaborate plan and you're saying, you know, that and then it just turns out not to be the case with signage and lots of other things. So could we put conditions for signage and things like that on this zone change? During the break, I was asked that very question. I can recall the council placing restrictions on freestanding signage in the past. I don't recall any conditional zoning restrictions related to, say, wall signs or window signs. I just don't recall any in my career regarding those to that level of specificity. But freestanding signs, yes. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Let's skip down to Council Member Clark, who hasn't spoken yet. Or have you? Yes, we have. Oh, you have spoken. Then how about I ask my questions? then we'll go to second time around. So, Mr. Sally. Kind of piggybacking on to Council Member Henson, the McCall's Alley parking, and Ms. Brown testified that she had, I think, three or four parking spaces that angled at the back of that building. And it looked like that if, and I guess I'm asking you to see if my interpretation could be correct, if the drive-through is backed up and people are driving on the alley and people try to pull out of those parking spaces, it looks like there could be a real potential for a jam up there. I mean, what's your best interpretation of really what I'm interested in is those parking spaces and people being able to get out of them or go in them? The building is identified here in relation to the alley, and this is the drive-through with its exit here. I believe the drawing that Ms. Brown provided talked about a conflict between a movement coming off of marquee to pull into those angled spaces versus the exiting movement from the drive-through. If the persons using those three or four angled spaces were coming in this direction and then backed into the spaces, similar to how we have it on Elm Tree Lane just north of Main Street, that would certainly have it to where the cars are heading in the same direction. that they would still have to be sure to wait for any traffic coming in off a marquee using the alley, either to come in this way or one of the other parking lots in this vicinity. But that one change, just in those spaces that are right across the alley, would certainly, in my view, aid the safety of that, to where you eliminate this conflict of this versus that. So who could make that change? Can the property owner mandate that they be back in only, or who does that? I think they could. It's on private property, so I'm not sure the government could mandate that. When this came before the Planning Commission, did the Planning Commission look at all those different pieces back there, including the parking spaces that Ms. Brown mentioned? They were shown photographs of that, and I know through the evolution of the development plan that the traffic engineering staff also reviewed that very closely. I don't remember the commission having this level of detailed discussion on that, to be honest with you. Okay. And then, Mr. Selle, when Mr. Kern testified, he talked about an accident history, that there are multiple accidents on marquee. Do you know when this came before the Planning Commission if they looked at accident history in relation to traffic movement and safety? Vice Mayor, the one time that I do recall that being at the Planning Commission was at one of the two hearings regarding the Kroger store. And I cannot remember if it was at the time of the zone change hearing or after the council hearing if it was at the time of the final development plan. But I do remember the commission asking for and receiving information about accident history up and down Euclid Avenue. To be honest with you, I don't remember the summary of that information. Was there any for Marquee? I believe there were some documented in the period at Marquee and Euclid. Again, I don't remember if it was a high number, a higher than average number. But I think there were, up and down Euclid, a few accidents on that street. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Now we're back to Councilmember Lawless, then Councilmember Clark, then Councilmember Akers. Thank you very much. The one thing, several things that I think we need to keep in mind is that Derek Paulson is doing a commercial economic corridor study on Euclid and South Lyme. So, again, I don't know why we're looking at this now. And, again, waiting until we see the impact of the Kroger seems to be common sense. You talked about you all had no control about what happened beyond your property in that alley. But we as a council and as a city, we do have responsibility for what happens there. And it's a small alley, and even years ago, I think the building that Graham Poles in had offices that I worked in years ago, and it was difficult then, and there certainly wasn't the level of development. I think it's also common sense that you're going to see more people coming from park up that alley to get there. But they don't have any responsibility or ability to control. However, that's our job, is to look out for the community and the safety of our residents. What if an ambulance is trying to get through? or, you know, I mean, it's a tiny little alley. And as far as asking a private property owner to make their parking spaces on their property back in only angled is absurd. And obviously, Mr. Sally hadn't seen me try to back up. So, again, when they met in August and the planning staff recommended a denial, there were several issues that came up by different commission members. and the drive-through I know was one of them, traffic, et cetera, those commission members weren't present at the September meeting. So it wasn't until the last minute we were under the impression they were going to ask them to postpone this application in September, and it wasn't until the last minute that we got information that the planning staff, that they were going ahead with it and the planning staff was going to recommend it. So if, I don't know, somebody, Ms. Clark is somebody I know that's very familiar with traffic circulation, et cetera. If, Amy, you want to – but, again, you know, yeah, they don't have control over that alley and the safety of it beyond their property. That's our job and a job that I think we have let our community down with on several occasions. So, and then I have one more question, and that is whether or not you plan to have two tenants in that building or, no, I mean in the new. Are you asking the petitioner? Yes. She's asking you, Mr. Talbot. We expect to have five or so. This all needs to be on the microphone. I'm so sorry. Thank you. The petitioner expects to have five tenants in the building. Also, there's a couple things about the traffic I'd just like to point out quickly, if I could. We think that we're making the situation on Marquee Avenue much better by eliminating all the parking on our side. And in addition, we're putting a speed bump in the alley to slow down traffic through there, and we're widening the alley. So if this were not a zone change, a P1 could go in there, build essentially, as Mr. Sally just said, the same footprint, without eliminating the parking, without putting in a speed bump, without widening the alley, all of which are significant improvements. Do you have a comment, Ms. Clark? Is my time up? What's the question again? About traffic, do you have the traffic information? Because we're just... You're talking about traffic count. Circulation. Circulation, yeah. I think you can see on the back there, just to clarify, where the alley exactly tapers down. It tapers down before the rear access point. It's only wide for the part where you exit the drive-through. but it tapers down to a 12-foot, not wide enough for cars to pass in both directions at that point of access where you see two-way arrows. There were also questions about trucks. Actually, it was a high point of contention at the Planning Commission hearing. I was there, and Mark Barker was there, and as they said, we got the staff recommendation of approval rather than postponement just an hour in advance of the meeting. So the licensure council was not aware that this would be their only opportunity for testimony. Let's see. Um, the suggestion was made that the city, for safety reasons, Mr. Buell of Ashland Building, um, said that his employee had had a very serious accident coming out the alley. And the suggestion was made that they could remove curbside parking along Marquis there to get a better site angle. If, however, that is intended for trucks or loading, that could be a problem. Another thing that came up at the Planning Commission hearing was that, in general, one prefers to align points of access so that if the Kroger access point were aligned with the alley, which is, in effect, the access point for the whole development, that makes a more orderly traffic flow. Euclid has the one through lane that is also a bus route. There's also a bike lane there, and there's a heavily trafficked sidewalk. Then there's that middle left turn lane that goes either way. So any congestion that does happen might induce someone instead to use marquee and come around the back as a point of access, and that offers more concern about the traffic along the alley. The trees that were mentioned as saved are not technically on the applicant's property. They're on the far side of the blue line that's the property line. It's perfectly legal. The applicant has secured an easement to control the trees or something on the neighboring property. Thank you. Have you run out of time? I'm sorry. Thank you. And, Council Members, let me remind you, we are still in the question phase, not the comment phase, okay, for Council Members. So when all questions have been answered, we'll all close the hearing, and then you can make your comments. Okay? Councilmember Clark. I'll defer to that time, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, is McCaw Avenue currently one-way or two-way street? It is not prohibited from two-way movement. At 12 feet, it's certainly substandard for two-way movement, but there is no prohibition on going in either direction. And there's no signage there that indicates it's a one-way street? I thought I had driven that to go into Graham's off. Okay. Park is one way from Euclid south. That is a one-way street. Right. No, I was thinking across street behind, like from Kroger over to the next. So has any consideration been given to convert it to a one-way street from, I guess, it would be park to marquee? I'm not sure of the process that that goes through the traffic engineering division. I don't know. I think I did remember asking their staff if that had ever been considered, and the staff was not aware that that had ever been talked about. It seems like it might be a reasonable consideration. I guess I would ask the callers what your thoughts are, if any, on that idea. I mean, because of where your entrance is and it's coming, you know, and the property, the parking on the opposite side and just the way of the whole movement, it seems like it might. I guess, first of all, it's an alley. You know, it's just intended for very limited purposes. The bulk of it is well beyond our property. We're just in the first 100 feet or so of it, so that's all we really control or are involved in. And we're also pretty newcomers to the area. I think we defer to people like Mr. Pohl who have been there for a long time. That's where they wanted one layer or two-way. But we think we've done all we can do by widening it. Sure. Could I ask Mr. Pohl what his thoughts are on that? Sure. He testified. Graham. Graham. Since you are a neighbor to this property, what are your thoughts on a one-way conversion? I think it's unnecessary. I've been using the alley for 15 years or something every single day. And I'm telling you, I have access to my parking lot off Euclid. And I prefer to use the alley because the alley works really, really well. And the reason all this brouhaha about the alley is so overblown, because I think what you're imagining is that this is this very restrained little 12-foot zone, but it's not. What happens is when you drive down the alley, if you happen to meet another car coming the other way, one or the other just pulls over to the edge because it's all parking around there. It's all asphalt, with the exception of the zone down near park. And the fact is, because that's a one-way street, Park Street is a one-way street, very, very few people drive down toward Park. Almost nobody does that unless they're driving that direction to go into one of the businesses that fronts on Euclid. So, you know, my personal feeling is that this whole concern about the alley is grossly overblown. And I think that making it one way would be really unfortunate because I think it's a safety valve in a way because coming in and out of the accesses off of Euclid Avenue that go past the businesses along Euclid, they're visually not – some of them are very tight visually when you come between two buildings that are close together. You can't see as well as you might like, and I think that the alley provides a really excellent way to move safely. And I think that the elimination of the parking along the alley adjacent to the proposed building is a really big issue, and it's a concession for them, too, because that means people can't park there and walk right into their building. But it's a safety concession. It really makes sense because when you come out of the alley, then you can really see what's going on, and the accident that was referred to was directly a result of someone parking right on Marquis Avenue next to the alley so that when she came out of the alley, she couldn't see the vehicle that was coming down Marquis at too great of a rate of speed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay, you're welcome. Council Member Massadi. Thank you. And Council Member, excuse me, Council Member Akers, I guess you were reading my mind. I guess on this plate, as I can see it, exiting to the west is the only way you can get out of the retail potential restaurant, correct? If north is at the top of the slide. That's a petitioner question. Correct. I mean, whoever can answer this question, I'm assuming. Tony, is that what I'm thinking? You can go either way on the alley. It's two-way, but if I'm coming out of there, I'm going to the left because I can get out of there. And I know we talked about the one-way, I guess, potential, and Mr. Grant Pohl said that it wasn't really necessary, but I know we're still going to have to back into those spaces, correct, on this one-way street if it's in that configuration? Well, it's two-way, right, but I mean, that's what she's saying. In order to alleviate the issues, it's a potential back end to this professional office. The angled parking across the alley? Those spaces are on private property, and I guess unless the alley were signed, no left turn or something like that, I'm not sure there's a prohibition for either pulling into them, as has been done historically, or the backing in. And we've got a 12-foot span we're talking about, correct? Yes, except there is a proposal to widen it to 18 at this location. Oh, 18. Okay. Yeah. All right. That's what I need to know. Thank you. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Sally, using the map up there, could you use the pointer to show me where park is? I'm sorry, to show you park? Yes, sir. Yes. Park is several hundred feet in this direction. At this scale. Can you, it didn't show up, Mr. Sully. I may have another map here that will show it a little better. There you go, Bill. Thank you. I was afraid you were going to use that map. Can you use the other map, please? Tell you what, let me do this. Let me use both of them. Okay. Now, I have, can we zoom out just a little bit, please? These are oriented the same way. Okay. This here matches this here. It's just a larger version. Okay. The alley's here. So park is here. So it is one, two, three, four properties removed from this line. Okay. So when you're talking about the parking places, those three spaces where people could back in or pull in, can you point those out? Yes, sir. Those are going to be generally in this area right here. Not on Euclid or McCall's Alley. Yeah, this is McCall's Alley. Oh, okay. That's here. Okay. I can see it now. Okay, so what I'm trying to understand is I think most of us thought that if you look at the top of the screen, the traffic will not be coming from that direction. It's going to be coming from Marquis Avenue. So how do they back in if they're pointed in the wrong direction? The only way they could back in would be to come in off of Euclid on the park and down the alley. and then back in. Okay. Or go through their parking lot in that direction. Those are the only two ways I can foresee that someone could back into those spaces. Okay. So earlier, I think you said that there wouldn't be anybody, most people wouldn't come from back there. Can you go to the microphone room, please? I think you were saying earlier the likelihood that that goes back into the neighborhood, and so people aren't going to be coming back from there unless they're trying to go into the neighborhood. So the likelihood that they're going to come from that direction would really only happen if they came through your parking lot, right? Well, they could come through our parking lot. They can come up Park, which is one way from Euclid to the alley. They can come in that way. They can come in Graham's parking lot. They can come in marquee onto McCall's and turn around in the four or five parking lots that are back there. I'm not proposing that they do that. I don't know why. There are three other accesses off of you. They park there now on a 12-lane, 12-foot alley. Now they're going to be parking there on an 18-foot alley. So the net gain is a plus. Either direction that they're parking. Okay. Thank you. That, you know, I'm sure there are options as far as those three parking places go. I think you're still running into traffic coming and going during the day. lunchtime having a fast food restaurant with the access going through the drive-thru which will be congested coming out so even if you are pulling in park and coming down the alley to back in to your parking places you're going to have people crossing over to go out onto marquee crossing over the lane coming, if you're coming down Marquis and you're turning right onto McCall's, you'll have to stop to let the cars come out. If you're trying to come down to back into your parking places, you know, I just see a dangerous situation with all of that right there. As As Mr. Pohl did say, we are very considerate up and down the alley, everyone, about pulling over, letting people pass. You know, I'm not sure 18 feet is even a standard to have cars passes. What happens in the mornings or at lunchtime is coming back, if you're coming from Euclid onto Marquis and you're wanting to do that right-hand turn, Right now we are, sometimes you get caught, so you already are pulling up into that first yard. There used to be a tree there, so it kind of helped when the tree was cut down so that you can get over to let somebody come through out to the alley. So it's just really high. It can be even more congestion. We have lots of UPS trucks delivering, picking up, along with FedEx. So I just think it's potentially not going to work. And you want a business to be successful in there. So anyway, that's all I have to say. Okay, thank you, Mr. Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes. Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Ms. Cillia, I have a question. And my comments are also going to be in regards to the congestion and the impact on the alleyway. Let's clarify what's being proposed in regards to widening the alley. Does the current development plan propose to grant easement to the city, officially dedicating that space that is now on the footprint of the property to the alleyway system? Or is it just basically allowing pavement on the property side of development to be counted towards use of the alleyway? The plan technically does not show any additional right-of-way, but from my recollection of the discussion of this with the applicant, I don't believe that they're opposed to dedicating the right-of-way for the alley. The drawing technically doesn't show that, but I'm not sure that's an issue from the developer's point of view. So technically it's not widening the alley? It is a widening to the pavement. the plan doesn't show a right-of-way dedication the way a plat would. But I think that's a detail that would ordinarily come at the time of a final development plan should the rezoning happen. Okay. Tony wants to jump in. Mr. Barrett. It's not shown on the section, but the traffic engineer did have me put a note on the development plan that addressed this. It says additional right-of-way for McCall's Alley to be dedicated to one and a half foot behind. I'll have to read it off of there. Okay, you're fine. It says additional right-of-way for McCall's Alley to be dedicated to one and a half feet behind widening improvements to be provided on final development plan, final record plat. So it will be dedicated. It's not depicted here, but it will be dedicated. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for that. That clarification is important. I still feel, based upon all the comment that's been made earlier, is that at this hour, I guess I could be kind of direct to the point. It's a recipe for disaster in that alleyway. It's just too congested. I just don't see how that alleyway isn't designed for that level of traffic. And marquee from my UK days is a local street. It is not a wide street at all. If the street were more wide, that may have an impact. So that's my one concern with where we are right now. Mr. Salih, Bill, let me ask you a few questions in regards to our role tonight as council. You mentioned in regards to conditions, and I don't have one to propose, but just trying to understand the rules that are bound to us. We place conditions on uses and on buffers. Landscape buffers, yes, sir. We chose not to look at the architectural schematic. That's not our purview. We don't want to be influenced by that. we didn't look at it. Uses, going from a P1 to a B1. We understand that there's the need for, I understand the need for a drive-through. I recognize that. So let me ask this question. How are we limited, or to what limit, are we confined this evening as a council in regards to the development plan? not that it would be our interest to redraw the development plan. That's not our interest. But, however, I do think we have to mitigate the conflicts that are in that alleyway right now. Somebody mentioned Caines earlier. I think one of the opponents mentioned Caines, I guess, which is the location I'm more familiar with up on Upper Street, the former location, I think, of Consolidated Church. which has parking on both sides. And it has not an alleyway. There's a street that's behind. I can't recall the name of that street that runs. It's Jersey Street. Jersey Street. But to go to King's off of Upper, if you go through the drive-through, you can come primarily off of Upper. This is just by comparison, primarily off of Upper or perhaps through Jersey Street. But if you exit the drive-through, you are facing towards Upper Street. Generally, when I go through in there, I'm coming off of Upper, around the building, so the building is kind of centered on the lot, and it allows you to go back to Upper Street. If I decide to park and I come off of Upper, I can make a right turn in those parks, and if I want to exit, I can go off of Upper Street if I choose, or I can go around the building and go back up the street. Speaking of buffering, going way back to buffering, how does that impact what we have here at Euclid, McCall's Alley, and Marquee? The council can require landscape buffers, and those are usually thought of as along the perimeter of the property. Most often when the council imposes buffering through conditional zoning or even the planning commission for that matter, it is between adjacent properties, much more so than between a property and a street. The lot before you tonight is bound on three sides by public streets, an alley, a local, and a collector, and only has one common property line. The ordinary landscape buffering for this development is proposed on the adjacent office building property in a five-foot landscape plan at easement, and that is allowed under the zoning ordinance. So any buffer that the council would impose through conditional zoning would probably have an inherent alteration of this plan at the time of a final development plan. Because even if you required five feet along that common boundary, that's not currently depicted on this plan. So if the council does do buffering, there will need to be a change at the next stage in the final plan. Thank you, Bill. Vice Mayor and Council Members, I don't have any. Mr. Tabo. Councilman Ford, if I could just address a couple of things. Are you asking a question of the petitioner? No, ma'am. I think he wants to reply to follow up to what Mr. Salee on this topic, I believe. On the topics, right. First of all, to be very clear, we feel like we've been smeared in social media by accusations of having a Raising Cane's here or some other stand-alone fast food. That's absolutely not the case. We've gone into a great deal of trouble to have Mr. Pohl here to hire a good architect to do a multi-tenant building. Marquis, you're right, Marquis is a narrow street and we think we're making it a lot better we're at the top end of it next to Euclid Avenue and we're eliminating the parking on our side all the way back so that's an effective widening someone could do a new P1 building here without any of these kind of improvements those are important concessions and important to keep in mind Thank you Mr. Talbot Vice Mayor, just in closing to you and council members I don't have any solution I do see a problem with McCall's Alley in tying back into buffering beyond landscaping buffering. I do think that if this passes tonight, if there's something we can do to provide a buffer between traffic that enters onto the property and that may impact McCall's Alley, we ought to do so. Because the way that it's set up now, I don't think it doesn't work for me. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and ask about that again. And then if there aren't any other questions, we'll end the hearing. This is questioning time. So, Mr. Salley, in the packet and notes from the Planning Commission from all the hearings, there was a large amount of concern about the drive-through. Yes. And it was discussed both times and at length. And so we're sort of hearing those same concerns again. So just to be clear on the conditions, the council does have the ability to make a condition that there be no drive-throughs. Is that correct? That's right. That is a use restriction for the property. And can you tell me why the Planning Commission, after all their discussion about the drive-through, why they decided not to do that? Is there any indication? The commission, if you look at the, probably the last page or page and a half of the August 28th meeting, they were very divided on the drive-through issue. Yes. And I believe they had one motion that did not restrict the drive-through that failed. They had another motion that did restrict the drive-through, and it failed, both, I think, by four to five votes, a very close vote on both counts. In the intervening three weeks, one member who was not present in August reviewed the record, watched the video, and he actually made the motion on the 11th to not restrict the drive-through. We had a little different dynamic of who was in attendance at that meeting, but the motion that passed did not restrict the drive-through. But, yes, your observation is exactly right. It was very much discussed, very much on the commission's mind. Okay, I appreciate that. Then I have a question for the petitioner. Given all of the discussion, pro and con, about the drive-through, Can the petitioner envision that you can do a development here without the drive-through? You know. Something different? Can we envision it? Yes, I think I'd like to speak to that. I mean, how important is this drive-through to the success of the development? Look, the drive-through is very successful to the development. If we're here and that's a condition to getting the zone from P1 to B1, then that's a decision that you'll have to make. I think that my experience in 25 years of doing real estate development in central Kentucky is that the city engineers, traffic, storm sewer, they're good folks, and they know what's going to make a viable development work. And so there are some nuances to this, and the alley being small, we're going to improve it greatly. We're not looking for a problem. It's possible that if approved with a B-1 zone with a drive-thru, we may choose not to build the drive-thru, but it would be an option on our plan. We're trying to get the zoning approved today to B-1, and that's what we're here to do. And then we're going to develop, once we have that zoning, a plan that complies with all the city ordinances. So we appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks so much. I appreciate that. Are there any other questions? Okay. Okay. Oh, okay. Mr. Farmer. So then you would widen the alley for the entire length of the, where you own the property then from 12 to 18 feet? We are required under the development plan to widen the alley and dedicate it to the city. Thank you. But it has to taper back, you know, per the development plan. And that's on. Right. Now that's the last, it's a handwritten note at the bottom of the notes in the right column. That's what. Council members, are there any other questions? No. Okay, I declare the hearing closed. I've always wanted to do that. All right, now, this is where council members have an opportunity to make statements, and if there is a motion for findings of facts, council members, you will remember that every motion has to be in the positive, and council will have to vote on findings of fact as well as adopting the ordinance, whatever council decides. So there are going to be two motions eventually. So this is the time to weigh in with your comments. Does anyone have any? Council Member Lawless. I'm not clear. This has been part of a great neighborhood, walking, biking, shop, work, where you live neighborhood, a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. And that's what it was designed for. a long time ago. And as we go back to more and more biking in large part, thanks to Council Member Ellender, they, you know, it doesn't, that one block from Kentucky to Marquee is all P1. And they're right, you know. The city, I think, has failed by letting those properties get in the shape they're in. But we have the, I mean, the neighborhood goes to and walks to the Chevy Chase Small Animal Clinic is very busy. And they have their own parking back there. And people do use the alley to get in there. When my pet was still living, that's what I did. So we have a lot of P1. We have a lot of B1 down that corridor. And we have retail that has had a hard time getting people, getting those spaces rented. so you know comparing a fast food restaurant to a bank isn't apples to oranges you know so I don't know what has changed that we would want to break up that boundary that block of P1 when we have B1 all up and down there, except where the university's building the very large dorms with no parking. That's part of the culture of that neighborhood and exactly what we are striving for. in our city, in our close urban areas, is, you know, best use of the land and the properties and the zoning. You know, it is, I have not heard the proof that this, anything that has changed that would need this to go from P1 to B1. And certainly the drive-through is an issue. And, you know, I love, I think, having dentist offices and doctor's offices and, you know, things like that would be great there, even if the buildings had to be torn down and things had to change. So that's my commentary on that. I don't think it follows the goals and objectives of our current master plan that we adopted. And I'm already concerned about we put 10 pounds of flyer in a five-pound bag with the Kroger's across the street. And I think that waiting to see what the impact of that Kroger is going to be on that neighborhood and on those houses is really a common sense thing to do. So thank you. It's just a comment I made, and if anybody wants to make a motion or whatever, make comment. Council Member Farmer. We'll give this a go, Vice Mayor. then I would move to approve MAR 14-16 for the reasons provided by staff and adding a drive-through as a prohibited use. So move. Second. Okay. I have a motion by Council Member Farmer and a few seconds. I think I heard Mr. Myers first to approve the MAR 2014-16 and add a condition of prohibited use of drive-thrus. Is that how you add a gate? Adding a drive-thru as a and adding a drive-thru as a prohibited use. Okay, thank you. And Mr. Myers seconded. Is there discussion of the motion on the floor? Now's the time. Thank you. zone change from P1 to B1. I think it's regardless of the opposition, and I understand the opposition, and I appreciate it very much, but I think given the use of the Euclid corridor, there is a reason to assume that this is probably an appropriate move. But I think if you think about what we're trying to do here, we're trying to do a drive-through, we're trying to find room for parking. We're trying to find, to keep trees. We're trying to put a buffer. We're trying to make traffic movement. We're trying to have room for a dumpster. It's just so much happening here. And I just think it's more than really this particular property can handle. And that's not to say that the alley can't be used appropriately, but I think the design that we see is presenting some problems in itself. That's not my advice. It's just my feeling. So I just wanted to make those comments, and I think that I see all kinds of problems that the way it's designed could offer us. And so basically that's my feeling. but I would defer for other comments. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lawless to the motion. I'd like to make a friendly amendment to the motion. There aren't really friendly amendments. Do you want to amend the motion? Everything I do is friendly, hon. I'm from Kentucky. What is your motion? It says D, automobile services stations. I'd like to include including gas pumps. Yeah. I think that's what it means, but, you know. Can we ask Mr. Salee to clarify that? I think if I hear you correctly, you're asking if the condition of the prohibited use D, automobile service station, includes pumps. Gas pumps. I believe that would be consistent with the Planning Commission's intent. But is it the law? I'm sorry? But is it the law? Well, an automobile service station generally includes repair and fueling facilities. We have a definition for that. I'll be glad to check that definition real quick. Okay. I just want to make sure we don't have a, you know, just fuel pumps there, gas station. so if he wants to check on whether or not fuel pumps are part of automobile services stations so okay you're waiting to hear a clarification from mr sally because i we don't have a second yet to your motion right well i think we're we'll put this up on the overhead for you real quick you can just say yes or no really it's we can zoom in that definition includes fueling okay thank you then never mind. I withdraw my motion. All right. Very good. Council Member Beard to the motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I've been staring at this drive-through all evening. It does not in any way, shape, or form encroach upon the alley. In fact, it's partitioned away from the alley for some stretch of time until it was time for somebody to exit, and they broadened the exit so they would have enabled them to be able to see better what might be coming or going on the alley itself before they stick their nose out. But just taking that away from them doesn't do anything except impair their ability to get... I don't know. I just think that I can't support Council Member Farmer's amendment. But beyond that, I think we ought to go ahead and approve this as the Planning Commission did. Thank you. Council Member Akers? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I agree with Council Member Beard in that the Planning Commission had multiple meetings with this. Our planning staff recommended approval as the plan was submitted. And I think it's a good thing, actually, that we encourage putting a lot in a small space. I think that our comprehensive plan calls for that and increased density inside the urban services boundary to maintain outside the urban services boundary. So I think that that's actually a positive. And then about the drive-thru, just across the street is Chase Bank that has a drive-thru. A door or two down is Fifth Third Bank that has a drive-thru. And Kroger next door will have a drive-thru. So I'm a little bit confused as to why those are all okay drive-thrus and this one would be such a problem. So that's where I'm not really comfortable. I understand that it's an alley, but they're expanding it to 18 feet. There is the concrete barrier that's going to separate divide the traffic flow. So I just don't see the need for removing it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other comment to the motion? And Councilmember Lawless. I support this motion. Thank you, Councilmember Farmer. I do think that it will add traffic issues, et cetera. It can always be put back, I suppose, after we see what happens with Kroger's. But I think this is a prudent way to approach this. Thank you. and so I will be supporting this motion. Thank you. Are there other comments on the motion? Okay, then we will vote, and I think probably it's a good idea for me to tell council members that this is a change from what the Planning Commission brought us, so it will require eight votes to overturn what was brought to us by the Planning Commission, and then it would require a new first reading. Is that correct? so council members now this is a voice vote I believe is it not or is it for the if it passes it would require me first reading because you would be adding a condition that was not in what you just had first read the beginning okay so council members will you log in your vote please Okay, that motion passes 9 to 2. So 10 to 2. Thank you for everyone voting. Now, we need to adopt our findings of fact, or what's next? If I'm correct, I think what Mr. Farmer said was that he was making a motion to approve this ordinance based on the findings of fact and the recommendations that were put forth by the planning commission. Okay. And to add that. So I think he did that in one fell swoop. So I think it's ready for their new first reading. Okay. So this is with the new condition. Okay. I'll ask our clerk to go ahead and give it a new first reading. Vice Mayor, this is with the new conditional use, but the title will stay the same. Pardon me? The conditional use has been added, but the title stays the same. Okay, very good. For a new first reading, an ordinance changing the zone from a professional office P1 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 0.588 net, 0.852 gross acres for property located at 626 through 634 Euclid Avenue, Collar Properties, LLC, Council District 3. Thank you very much. Now, I believe we need a motion to approve. We need a new, hang on. We need the new second reading, correct? Right. And then we need the motion to approve and the roll call. Is that correct? I don't think you need a new motion. I think the motion was made to approve it with that condition. So let's have the new second reading then. Okay. And then another vote. Yeah. For second reading, an ordinance changing the zone from a professional office P1 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 0.588 net, 0.852 gross acres for property located at 626 through 634 Euclid Avenue, Collar Properties, LLC, Council District 3. Thank you. Do I hear a motion to approve? All right. Will you call the roll, please? Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gordon? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Reluctant, yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Gutchfield? Ms. Akers. Yes, ma'am. All right, that motion passes 11 to 0, and I believe we have no other business, or do we? No, we don't. And just for the record, this ordinance will be revised in the council clerk's office, and that additional prohibited use will be added. Okay, very good. I want to thank everyone on all sides of the issue for being here and ask for an adjourned motion. Move adjourned. Say aye. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you.