# Urban County Council - Zone Change Public Hearing - March 7, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 7, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4194 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4194?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-03-07 - **Last revised**: March 7, 2017 - **Length**: 19,362 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 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a meeting on March 7, 2017, at 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice-Mayor Kay presiding. The meeting focused on a single agenda item involving a zone change ordinance. During the session, the council heard 5 public comments and took 1 vote on the matter before them. The meeting resulted in the approval of Ordinance 0088-17 Zone Change, completing the primary business on the agenda. ## Attendance **Present:** Kay, Henson, Higgins, Lamb, Moloney, Plomin, Scutchfield, Bledsoe, F. Brown, J. Brown **Absent:** Mossotti, Stinnett, Evans, Farmer, Gibbs **Late:** None Ten members were present for the March 7, 2017 meeting, with five members absent. No members arrived late to the session. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted one recorded vote during this meeting. **Ordinance 0088-17** [timestamp: 07:04] The council voted on an ordinance to change the zoning classification from Light Industrial (I-1) to High Rise Apartment (R-5) for properties located on Blackburn Avenue. Ms. Lamb made the motion, which was seconded by Ms. Bledsoe. The measure passed unanimously by roll call vote with 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. Council members voting in favor were: Henson, Higgins, Kay, Lamb, Moloney, Plomin, Scutchfield, Bledsoe, F. Brown, and J. Brown. No council members voted against the ordinance or abstained from voting. ## Public Comment Five residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a proposed zone change and development project. **Cindy Bowling** [timestamp: 01:30] raised concerns about parking, safety issues, and the potential impact on community investment from the proposed development. **Zachary Johnson** [timestamp: 01:45] opposed the development, citing concerns about increased traffic congestion, inadequate parking provisions, and the overall scale of the proposed project being inappropriate for the area. **Greg Bill** [timestamp: 02:00] focused his comments on the potential negative effects of market rate housing on the existing neighborhood character and expressed concerns that the development could lead to rent increases for current residents. **Barbara Grossman** [timestamp: 02:30] addressed multiple issues including parking shortages, traffic impacts, and the scale of the development. She also questioned the developer's reputation and track record. **Faith Harders** [timestamp: 03:00] discussed the Fourth Street Plan and the community's need for medium density development. However, she emphasized concerns about Blackburn Avenue being too narrow to accommodate the proposed project's impact. All speakers opposed the zone change, with common themes including traffic and parking concerns, questions about the development's scale and appropriateness for the neighborhood, and potential negative impacts on existing residents. The comments reflected broader community concerns about development pressure and maintaining neighborhood character. ## Contested Items The primary contested item at the March 7, 2017 meeting involved a proposed zone change from Light Industrial to High Rise Apartment designation. The proposal faced significant community opposition from local residents who raised multiple concerns about the potential development. Residents who spoke against the zone change expressed specific objections regarding the anticipated impact on neighborhood infrastructure and quality of life. Their primary concerns centered on increased traffic congestion that would result from a high-density residential development in an area previously zoned for light industrial use. Community members also cited parking issues as a major concern, arguing that the proposed high-rise apartment complex would create insufficient parking availability for both new residents and existing neighborhood users. Additionally, opponents raised concerns about the scale and character of the proposed development, arguing that a high-rise apartment building would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood context and would represent an inappropriate transition from the area's industrial zoning designation. The community opposition appeared to be organized, with multiple residents participating in the public comment portion of the meeting to voice their objections to the zone change proposal. The residents' concerns focused on practical infrastructure impacts rather than broader policy disagreements, suggesting a neighborhood-level mobilization against the specific development proposal. The extracted data does not indicate the final outcome of this contested zone change proposal or whether the governing body took action on the item during this particular meeting session. ## Ordinance 0088-17 Zone Change [timestamp: 00:10] The council considered Ordinance 0088-17, which proposed changing the zoning classification from Light Industrial (I-1) to High Rise Apartment (R-5) for properties located on Blackburn Avenue. The development plan calls for 72 residential units with accompanying parking provisions. Several key speakers participated in the discussion of this zoning change request: • **William Sallee** presented details regarding the proposed development • **Jacob Walbourn** contributed to the technical discussion • **Cindy Bowling** provided input on the zoning considerations • **Zachary Johnson** participated in the deliberations • **Barbara Grossman** offered commentary on the proposal The ordinance represents a significant shift from industrial use to high-density residential development in the affected area. The proposed R-5 High Rise Apartment zoning would accommodate the planned 72-unit residential complex, marking a transition from the current Light Industrial designation that previously governed land use in this section of Blackburn Avenue. The discussion included consideration of the parking provisions that would accompany the residential development, ensuring adequate vehicle accommodation for the proposed unit count. Council members and speakers addressed various aspects of the zoning change, including its compatibility with surrounding land uses and the appropriateness of the high-density residential classification for the location. Following the presentations and discussion among the participants, the council voted to **approve** Ordinance 0088-17. This approval authorizes the zoning change from I-1 to R-5, clearing the way for the proposed 72-unit residential development on Blackburn Avenue to proceed under the new High Rise Apartment zoning classification. --- ## Decisions - **0088-17** — passed (10-0): An Ordinance changing the zone from Light Industrial (I-1) to High Rise Apartment (R-5) for properties on Blackburn Ave. --- ## Full transcript I just wanna miss one kiss I just wanna be with you, right here with you Just like this I just wanna hold you close I feel your heart so close to mine And just stay here any moment For all the rest of time Don't wanna close my eyes Don't wanna fall asleep Cause I miss you baby And I don't wanna miss a thing Cause even when I dream again The sweetest dream would never do I still miss you baby And I don't wanna miss a thing I don't want to close my eyes I don't want to fall asleep Cause I miss you, babe And I don't want to miss a thing Cause even when I try The sweetest dream I've ever done But I still miss you, babe And I don't want to miss a thing I don't want to close my eyes I don't want to fall I don't want this event Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Welcome. This is a council's own change hearing, March 7th, 2017. And the first order of business will be for the clerk to call the roll. Madam Clerk, when you're ready. Ms. Henson? Here. Ms. Higgins? Here. Vice Mayor Kay? Here. Ms. Lamb? Here. Mr. Maloney? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Masadi? Ms. Plowman? Here. Ms. Gutchfield? Here. Mr. Stinnett? Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Here. Mr. James Brown? Here. Ms. Evans? Mr. Farmer? And Mr. Gibbs? Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to take a little bit of time to explain how we're going to proceed. But let me first do two things. I think we'll have the, if we, Madam Clerk, if you give a second reading to the zone change ordinance, then I'll swear people in and then I'll explain more about the proceedings. So you would give a reading. An ordinance changing the zone from a light industrial I-1 zone to a high-rise apartment R-5 zone, excuse me, for 1.49 net, 1.78 gross acres, and from a neighborhood business B-1 zone to a high-rise apartment R-5 zone for 0.24 net 0.27 gross acres for properties located at 339-341-345 and 349 Blackburn Avenue and adjacent former railroad right-of-way Calgill Partners LP Council District 2. Thank you. Now, if you are planning to speak at all, or if you think you might, I need to swear you in. So if you would stand and raise your right hand. and when I conclude just if you would say yes, do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Thank you. So a few logistics. First, we've reached an agreement with Council and with those in opposition that the introductory remarks, presentations will be limited to no more than 30 minutes. In addition, we would request that you keep any rebuttal remarks to five minutes. And if there are people who are not part of a presentation but wish to speak individually, those would be limited to three minutes. I'm Steve Kay. I'm the Vice Mayor. I will be presiding at this hearing. And a part of my responsibility is to make decisions about what can and cannot be included in evidence. and that's mainly our interest in excluding irrelevant or repetitious testimony. And a part of the balance here, and Council members discuss these issues, we want to assure that people who have come have an opportunity to speak, but we also want to respect everybody's time and attention. So we try to, as much as possible, make it possible for people to say what they need to say, but to not have this be a lengthier hearing than it needs to be. When you make a presentation, if you have printed materials, if you submit it to the clerk, if you have copies, they will circulate that to the rest of the council. Anybody who speaks is subject to cross-examination by the other side, so if you speak, we ask that you stay until the conclusion of the hearing. Let me just now walk through the order of the hearing itself. First, there will be a presentation by the planning division staff and an opportunity for cross-examination by petitioner or opponent. Then the presentation by the petitioner with, again, an opportunity for cross-examination. Then a presentation by the opponents. And then an opportunity for individual comment if there are any in addition to that presentation. And all of those folks will also be subject to cross-examination. Staff will then have the opportunity to make additional comments, if any. Petitioner can present rebuttal evidence. There is then an opportunity for a closing summation by the opposition. And then a closing summation by petitioner. At that point, Council members can ask questions of staff, petitioner, and opponent, and if there is any new evidence introduced, there is an opportunity for rebuttal. After questions from Council, I will declare the hearing closed, and at that point there will be no further opportunity for any new evidence to be submitted for any comments from anybody except those on Council. Council will then deliberate amongst itself and vote to adopt or not adopt findings of fact by a roll call vote and then to take a vote on the underlying ordinance. I believe that's all except for one thing and that is in zone change hearings for this council to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission requires a majority of council as opposed to a majority of those present. So a majority of council is eight votes. So any motion to overturn would require eight votes of the ten votes present. And I believe that is all I need unless the law informs me that I've skipped anything. Am I okay? If that's the case, then we can begin. And we'll start with the presentation by staff. Mr. Salee, welcome. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye, members of the Council. Good evening. I should say good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bill Salee. I am the planning manager for the planning services section. of the Urban County Government's Division of Planning. It's my pleasure to be here this evening and to share with you the history of this zone change up to this point in time. It is necessary to enter a number of items into the record of your hearing, as is our usual protocol. The first is the legal advertisement placed in the local newspaper, advertising the date and time of tonight's hearing. Another is an affidavit that I have signed regarding the notification letters that were mailed to all the property owners within 500 feet of this location and also to the two nearest neighborhood associations that are registered in this area. The next item is the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission regarding the public hearing they held on this zone change request on December 15th of last year. This has been put at your place and there are a number of copies behind me on the counter for anyone in the audience that would wish to look at this that doesn't have a copy already. I'd like to enter into the record the 2013 conferencing plan in its entirety. Copy of the Lexington Central Sector Small Area Plan. This is a small area plan done for the area including the subject property in 2009 was adopted by the Planning Commission. Also, a more recent study called the Fourth Street Zoning Study, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission and conducted by a number of entities, also included in this area. Copies of the current zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations that are in effect for the urban county government. one letter that we have received from the Powerhouse Church of God, a nearby property owner. If you will, I'll enter the original with the clerk and circulate a copy to the council for your review at this time. Then the last item is a PowerPoint presentation that will serve as the outline of my presentation to you this evening. Hard copy for the record. As I mentioned, the subject property was reviewed by the Planning Commission in December of last year, and as the clerk read, it involves a zone change of just over two gross acres of property. That includes rights of way at the corner of West 4th Street and Blackburn Avenue. This is a view of the zoning map of the area, and the subject property is at the center of the diagram. And most of it is currently zoned light industrial, I-1, as is the zoning of all properties surrounding it on three sides, to the northwest, to the northeast, and to the southeast. On the opposite side is land that is zoned R-2 for residential uses along Blackburn Avenue and extending to West 3rd Street, to the south and west of this location. You will note there is one property in the center of the subject area identified. That property is currently zoned B1, neighborhood business. And as we get to the slides, that might make a little more sense, but that zoning has been in place on that property for several decades. The application seeks to rezone both of these areas from I1 and B1 to an R5, high-rise apartment zone. and as you can imagine a multi-family residential use is contemplated for this location. Here's an aerial photo of the same location. We find that the subject property has a number of structures on it currently and it is directly across West 4th Street from fairly new improvement done by Transylvania University for their outdoor athletic fields and their track. You can see in the photo. There are industrial uses, as the zoning indicates, both to the northwest and to the southeast in existence, and almost the entirety of the land along Harry Street to the northwest has active light industrial uses on it. Likewise, the photo clearly shows that this is an area that also has residential use in it. Most of the residences in this area are single-family residential, detached structures, although there probably are a few duplexes and triplexes mixed throughout the West 3rd Street area and probably also on Maryland Avenue, despite the R2 zoning there. I have some photos of the subject property taken from the ground. This is taken from the intersection of Blackburn and West 4th. This is looking to the northwest, and the subject property is in the slide. West 4th is the sidewalk you see in the center right of the slide is the sidewalk for West 4th. It extends all the way to Newtown Pike in this location. The sidewalk extending to the left is along Blackburn Avenue. There are a number of light industrial buildings on the property. There's not really been a use on this property for several years, but most of the property is covered with impervious surface. Included in the zone change is the grass area you see in the center right of this photo. At the time of the zone change, before the Planning Commission, this parcel was owned by Transylvania University. I believe they still own the property, but they did consent to have it rezoned to R5 as well. And as we look at the development plan in a few minutes, there will not be any use proposed for that, but the zoning does extend from the center line to West 4th and Blackburn Avenue in this area. This is looking further down Blackburn Avenue, back at the subject property. This is in a northerly direction. And the B1 portion of the subject property I showed you is now in view in this slide. There appears to be a structure that for some purpose was rezoned B1 probably back in the middle part of the last century, but that use is no longer in place. The industrial building we saw in the previous slide is behind that, and this slide is a good representation of the extensive amount of impervious surface on the subject property for this former industrial use. This is the same location looking at the buildings on the southernmost portion of the subject property. Again, no active use of those properties. Just beyond the trees you see in the center left of this photo are two vacant lots that are not part of the zone change, although staff understands those are owned by the petitioner. This is a view of the Transylvania athletic complex right across 4th Street, and the use in the lower right is looking directly across Blackburn Avenue at the existing light industrial building and location on the opposite corner of Blackburn and West 4th. This zone change is a little bit unusual in that there are several studies that have been made in this area. And if you have had the opportunity to look at the staff report that's enclosed in the Planning Commission's final report, You'll see one entire page of our report is devoted to the review of these four studies. The 2013 comprehensive plan, the small area plan that I introduced earlier called the Central Sector Small Area Plan, the downtown Lexington Master Plan that was done early in the last decade, and also the 4th Street Zoning Study that was concluded in 2014 for this area. These plan recommendations are subtly different in each one, including the area of the subject property, but the staff did find some commonality in those four plans and the study in what they recommend. They do suggest further intensification near downtown neighborhoods, hopefully where possible through the use of infill development, increasing density, and encouraging the redevelopment of underutilized properties. These next two slides talk about the small area plans and the other studies that are mentioned in our staff report as well. The Central Sector Plan identified 4th Street as a focus area, primarily due to its location and proximity to the BCTC campus, which is a very short distance north of this location, just across the railroad tracks that are on the other side of Harry Street. The Small Area Plan recommended developing new zoning techniques for this area that could be utilized in this area. Those have not occurred to this date, but those are under review by the Division of Planning. The Town Town Lexington Master Plan document recommended maximizing residential density on generally vacant sites. This is not a vacant site, but it is certainly a redevelopment opportunity from the staff view. And then finally, the 4th Street Zoning Study, the most recent activity in terms of an analysis of this particular area, talked about the need for this area to be viewed as an opportunity district for mid-density residential or mid-to-low-density residential mixed-use development. The staff concluded from reviewing all of these plans that collectively they do support residential infill and redevelopment and the elimination of industrial uses along the West 4th Street corridor. The petitioner's application to R5 to take an industrial use to residential is consistent with those recommendations, and they have designed their project in a way where the building will orient more to West 4th Street and have parking separating that building from the existing residences that are to the southwest along Blackburn Avenue. Thus, the staff recommended to the Planning Commission at their meeting in December that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this zone change to the Council. We found that the R5 zone that was requested was in agreement with the current 2013 comprehensive plan, that it was consistent with the Central Sector Small Area Plan, which did view this as a redevelopment area, and much of the 4th Street zoning study prepared for the area. The Planning Commission, as you can see on their recommendation to you, recommended approval of this zone change at their hearing. They voted 8-0 to make that recommendation. They heard not just from the planning staff, but also from the petitioner and their representatives, and from several objectors, probably many of whom are here tonight as well. Their recommendation is that the R5 zone is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. The plan recommends expanding housing choices with an emphasis on mixed use and higher density development in certain situations to address a variety of community needs. Secondly, the proposed zone change will enable redevelopment of an industrial site in the near downtown area very close to the West 4th Street corridor. Thirdly, the petitioner's project is situated between the BCTC campus and Transylvania University and thus an opportunity exists to provide high-density housing near existing jobs and higher education facilities. And fourth, the petitioner is redeveloping an underutilized industrial site along West 4th Street, which has been identified as a focus area for redevelopment in several supporting plans. Another finding was that the subject properties are located within the boundary of the Central Sector Small Area Plan, which identifies this corridor west of Jefferson Street as a focus area to better connect the two campuses that I just mentioned. Another finding, the Downtown Lexington Master Plan recommends maximizing residential density at vacant sites, and this proposal, in the staff's view, fulfills that recommendation. Finally, flipping to the second page, the Fourth Street Zoning Study identifies an opportunity district for mid-density residential or mid- to low-density mixed-use development, which could create a transition from more intense use to single-family residences. The R5 zone will create a higher density and a more urban environment and will act as a step-down in land use intensity from the industrial and more intense uses to the north and east to the residences to the south and west of this location. the planning commission's recommendation was made subject to the preliminary development plan that they reviewed at their public hearing last December we have that on the board as an exhibit and this provides a good illustration of the applicant's development proposal for the property again we have West 4th Street here and Blackburn Avenue here Blackburn tees into the facility. The Transylvania facility is directly across the street just for orientation. The proposal is one multifamily residential building oriented much to the corner of the intersection, although this is the grass area we saw in the slide that was not part of the preliminary development plan that Transylvania agreed for the applicant to rezone. So that grass area is in essence between the sidewalk and the building wall of this multifamily building that's proposed. It's an L-shaped building, almost equidistant in both directions along 4th and Blackburn Avenue. It is proposed to be four stories in height, a maximum height of 49 feet according to the development plan, and some 72 multifamily residential uses, pardon me, dwelling units are proposed in this single building. They do have outdoor areas devoted to a swimming pool and to an outdoor grill along the Blackburn frontage, and then a sizable off-street parking lot with a single point of access to Blackburn Avenue. The zoning ordinance for this many apartment units requires 108 parking spaces. That is the exact number shown on the preliminary development plan. The Planning Commission approved this preliminary plan, and it was certified before 2016 ended. More recently, on the 9th of February, the applicant brought a final development plan for the property to the Planning Commission. It is much like this plan, with a couple of noted exceptions. It now includes the grass strip that is owned by Transylvania, although it is not proposed to be developed. It is proposed still to remain as an open grass area. The building will still be oriented much as you see here, although it's slightly shorter on this end. It's almost the same dimension in both directions and slightly shorter in that end of the building. same number of units and comparable number of parking spaces. That plan is approved, but it will not be able to be certified unless the rezoning that's before you tonight is approved by the council. That concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you very much. And as you know, I will be available later in the hearing to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to the presentation by petitioner, Mr. Walburn. Hello and good evening, Vice Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jacob Walburn. I'm an attorney with McBrayer Law Firm here in Lexington. It's a distinct privilege, as always, to appear in front of you, but a true honor to represent this client. Before I introduce them, I would like to introduce our site planner, Kevin Warner, with Carmen. Should you have any specific questions about the development plan, I believe Kevin will be able to assist you there. But it's a real honor today to be here representing the Calgill family. Some of you may know the Calgill family. They've been a Lexington family for many years. Their business is located here on Richmond Road. This isn't a national developer. This is a local business, and it's always an honor to represent a local business. Before I begin, much as Mr. Salee, I have a few items that I need to enter into the record. The petitioner is required to post a sign on the property indicating the date and time of the hearing. This is an affidavit evidencing that we have done so. Much as Mr. Salee, I can't help myself. I love PowerPoint, so my remarks will be largely on PowerPoint. I'm entering a copy of that into the record. I am going to try to move quickly just to honor the time limits. So I've brought two hard copies of my presentation for council to pass around. If there was a slide that I maybe glanced over that you wanted to take a closer look at, I will let you all look at these. And finally, in my presentation, I will be making some references to the Lexington Downtown Development Authority's Downtown Market Inventory 2015 report. I'll have pictures in the presentation, but I did want to enter a copy of the whole document into the record. Mr. Salisa, a lot of my thunder on the first slide, but our project is fairly straightforward. It's about 1.7 net acres of developable property. It's going from industrial and neighborhood business zoning to, as Mr. Salisa mentioned, high-rise apartment. That's a little bit misleading in this circumstance, as we've been granted a variance. The height of our building may not exceed 49 feet, so this will not ever be able to go higher than four stories without further approval from the government. The only reason that we are R5 versus R4 is an issue of floor area ratio. There are limitations on the amount of floor area ratio you can have on a site. We are otherwise in compliance with R4 standards. We are slightly over on FAR. That's why it's R5 and not R4. 72 units, they are market rate apartments. Most importantly, we did not request a parking variance. A lot of times in infill projects, because the sites are pretty tight, you'll see people ask for a reduction in their required parking. We did not do so. We have a parking space per bedroom. Each bedroom has a parking space. You've seen the development plan, so I won't rehash that. I do want to explain a little bit about that strip that Mr. Salee referenced, the grass strip. That's former CSX right-of-way that was abandoned and given to Transylvania University. I'm not sure if it was donated or sold, so don't quote me on that. It was under the control of Transylvania University, but it's essentially a useless parcel. It's only about 18 1⁄2 feet or 20 feet wide, just a grass strip. So in between the zone change and the final development plan, we were able to obtain that from Transylvania University. We are not going to move the building forward. We're going to leave that green space green and let our residents use it as an amenity of the development. But that is what happened with that particular piece. The amenities of our site, we think these have suburban level amenities in a downtown apartment. That's part of the reason why the density is necessary. Greater density allows you to have greater amenities because there's greater cost sharing. You can read these, so I won't read them to you other than I just have to say the word Paw Spa because I think it's great. This will be a pet-friendly development. But probably the number one amenity of our site, there are only three things that matter in real estate, location, location, location. And this is a fantastic location. It is one block off of Jefferson Street. As you all know, the Jefferson Street corridor has really taken off with bars and restaurants, a very popular destination. We're just a couple of blocks from Rupp Arena, from Triangle Park, from downtown. Our intended market segment, as I'll touch on in a little bit, are urban young professionals. We think this will be a very popular destination for people who want to walk or bike to work. And that's the target market for us. I want to go over the application history briefly. Mr. Salee hit on the high points, but we filed our application. We sought a rezoning in four variances. As I explained at the hearing before the planning commission, it could have just been one variance if we would have sought a parking variance, but we did not want to dump traffic on the neighborhood. So we had to have some setback variances. The plan was reviewed by staff. Staff recommended approval of our zoning proposal, as Mr. Salee told you, and approval on three of the four variances that we sought. They did not recommend approval for our open space variance. And as you might imagine, that's how we came to get the property from Transylvania. so that we could meet our open space requirements. The Planning Commission decision on our zoning was unanimous. It was 8-0 on that hearing in December. Our variances were approved 7-1. I won't speak for the Planning Commissioner who voted against it, but I think it's because he wanted to give us our open space variance, not because he was opposed to it. But you can look in the record and make your own judgment. As Mr. Salee mentioned, we brought forward a final development plan, which was also unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. It's, as Mr. Slee mentioned, vastly similar to the one you see on the board with only a few slight differences. That unanimous approval was on February 9th, but we cannot have that plan certified until the council elects to ratify the zone change or not. Mr. Slee covered the zoning. I would point out that we are in an industrial area, but you're not seeing an industrial use. And downtown zoning tends to be a little funny because the use does not always equal the zoning. This is because zoning kind of came into practice after the downtown developed, so you'll see a lot of uses that don't match their zone. I'll talk about some general patterns we see in downtown zoning, but we are seeking to rezone only industrial property. We do own two vacant lots next door that I'll show you in a minute. They are not a part of this proposal and are not proposed to become part of this development. This picture was obtained from the PVA. They use a little bit of an outdated overhead, but it does show you the parcel boundaries where I've pointed out those two vacant lots that will remain R2 zoned. We are just a block over from the bluegrass grain silo, which is substantially taller than the building that we're proposing, and I've labeled where the Transy Athletics facility is. This is a more modern photograph, so you can see the Transy facility directly across the street. We would only be developing on the paved area, which is here. That would be the line. As Mr. Salee mentioned, there are several studies that cover this property. Typically, every property in Lexington is subject to one plan, that is the comprehensive plan. We got stuck with four, and they're all a little different. The comprehensive plan, the central sector small area plan, the downtown Lexington master plan, and the 4th Street zoning study. These all have various requirements, but also various levels of adoption by the Planning Commission and various levels of depth of the studies. And I'm going to go over those a little bit specifically so you can see how I think we have met the mandates of those plans. Mr. Slee did an excellent job explaining how we met the comprehensive plan. I won't belabor that other than to say they found seven separate goals and objectives that they thought this proposal addressed. We are in complete agreement with that, actually suggested to them that that was true, and they accepted our assessment there. You're going to have a hard time finding a plan that meets more of the comprehensive plan's goals and objectives. Moving on to these small area plans, the central sector small area plan has been around for about eight years now. It's 120 pages long. It is an adopted element of the comprehensive plan. That means it carries the same weight as the comprehensive plan. The plan on the whole covers about 2,400 acres, roughly bounded by Georgetown Road and Winchester Road on the sides, New Circle and 2nd Street on the ends. It's broken down into several sub-areas. We are on the border of sub-area C. There are kind of four broad guiding principles that the Central Sector Small Area Plan identifies. Enhancing the urban fabric, promoting and preparing for redevelopment and investment, providing adequate and equitable housing, and preserving the cultural and historic heritage of Lexington. In support of those kind of broad guiding principles, there are 17 goals and dozens of sub-goals that have been identified. We think our proposal meets several elements of that plan. I would say that a big emphasis of the small area plan, the central sector small area plan, was on rehabbing and cleaning up what was already downtown. If you think about that area, there has historically been a problem with absentee landlords. that don't keep up their properties with posting of temporary signs. And a lot of the goals and objectives of the small area plan don't really apply to a redevelopment like ours. But there are some specific ones that I think do. There's been a real hurdle in redevelopment in this area of Lexington. Why? Because infill redevelopment is exceedingly expensive. Downtown infrastructure tends to be the oldest in town. You have tremendous costs. A lot of the parcels are very small. To collect enough parcels to do a redevelopment proposal takes a lot of time and a lot of money. And if someone gets wind of what you're doing, chances are the price is going to go up. So there are a lot of obstacles to market growth. One of the things that the plan emphasized was to identify brownfield sites within the central sector that might be prone for redevelopment. And we are a formal industrial site. I don't know if I'm willing to call us a brownfield site. If we are, we are the lightest brownfield site in history. There is one environmental restriction on our property. We can't put a well for drinking water. On account that the city has water, I don't think that's going to be a substantial issue. And our remediation plan has been approved by Frankfurt to lift that restriction from the property. So there's really no contamination on this site to speak of. But I do think it at least broadly meets that brownfield site. This is a formal industrial site that's being proposed for redevelopment. pretty much directly meets that goal of the Central Sector Small Area Plan. The plan also advises to create a real estate marketing program to attract new residents to the community. A high-amenity modern apartment building will tend to do just that. Again, the plan underlines the financial difficulty and actually wants the city to identify funding mechanisms to make this development easier. We have not requested any city dollars. This is 100% private investment, so we think we help meet those goals. Additionally, utilizing housing as an economic development pool. It says to actually target your multifamily housing units adjacent to neighborhood commercial use. Though I was sad to see that it had gone on the market recently, the Thistle Station development is a substantial B1 property that is a little more than a block away from us. and again as I mentioned the plan recognizes the difficulties with assembling parcels to do redevelopment and ask that the city actually undertake some of those tasks again we've done it without city dollars we've leveraged private investment dollars the small area plan as I mentioned breaks us down into several sub areas there's a lot of information on this slide I'll just point out a couple of things One, there was a point of this plan that said that not only are we to encourage redevelopment, we're actually to incentivize it, to try to speed along the process, to give incentives for people to undertake development here. So this is obviously an area that has been targeted for redevelopment, and that's strongly encouraged by the plan. It also mentioned that specifically an apartment building of urban density should be considered at the corner of 4th Street and Jefferson. That is less than a block from our location. And it said, again, incentivize that infill development. So I think we're hitting a lot of the points of even the sub-area components of the Central Sector Small Area Plan. Mr. Salee told you about the findings. I won't reread these to you, but the staff did suggest and the Planning Commission agreed that we were in compliance with the Central Sector Small Area Plan. We're also covered by the Downtown Lexington Master Plan, That plan's about 12 years old now, but it's another substantial document, about 117 pages long. It is partially an adopted element of the comprehensive plan. Portions of the study were adopted, but not all of them. The precinct-level recommendations, when they really kind of drilled down a la sub-area C in the central sector plan, those recommendations were not an adopted element of the comprehensive plan, but the broad goals and objectives were. Again, as you're going to sense the theme tonight from both me and Mr. Salee, infill development is something that's strongly encouraged in these plans. The Downtown Lexington Master Plan calls for us to maximize density, not to increase it, to take it as high as we can go. And it also calls for us to increase residential development. I think we are directly meeting these goals of the Downtown Lexington Master Plan. Now, the precinct-level plans were not adopted, but I wanted just to touch briefly, this was considered part of the Northside precinct. And what I would point out to you here is that they've identified that there really are very few opportunities for infill in this particular precinct. So when an opportunity like this comes along to meet the goals and objectives of that plan, like maximizing density, like encouraging residential development, we really need to be mindful that those opportunities do not come along very often. And what did the staff say and the Planning Commission agree? that we were in agreement with the downtown Lexington Master Plan. Now you're probably going to hear a lot tonight about the 4th Street Study. In fact, I venture to guess that you're going to hear a lot about one page of the 4th Street Study. It is a more recent study. It was only completed three years ago. It is not nearly as substantial as the other studies I've discussed with you. It's only 32 pages and it's largely pictures. It is not an adopted element of the comprehensive plan. If you'll remember from previous times I presented to you, we're required to demonstrate compliance with the comprehensive plan. Because this is not an element of the comprehensive plan, we're not required to meet it. I think we do, but it's not a requirement because this is not an adopted element of the comprehensive plan. And frankly, there are some issues with this study. It did not have developer representatives on it, and some of the items in it I just found interesting. This is on page two of the 4th Street study. it depicts a four-story apartment building on the corner of Newtown and 4th Street. I've put a map on the bottom to show you the distance between our site and the corner of Newtown and 4th Street. So clearly development of the scale was contemplated by the 4th Street study. It strongly encourages mixed use, and I myself am a big fan of mixed use, but unfortunately our experience in Lexington has not borne out that as a really viable model. Two of the exemplar properties they've given were Center Court and Kimball House Square. Center Court, as you know, has had a couple of issues, recently been in the newspaper. It's also had trouble attracting and maintaining those ground floor business level, ground floor retail establishments and restaurant establishments. Kimball House Square was a mixed-use project that I thought was actually very neat. They actually recently went through a rezoning process to remove some of the conditional zoning restrictions that required them to have commercial properties. It's now more residential. The moral here being residential projects tend to do fairly well. We've had a little bit of a mixed track record with mixed use. This is really long, but this is what the staff said with regard to the 4th Street study. That generally our plan is in agreement with the 4th Street study. And the Planning Commission adopted that finding. So with all of these plans and all of these varying requirements that all have various levels of weight that the Planning Commission is supposed to give, they found that we comply with all of them. now at the commercial property association of Lexington recently there was a guest speaker that indicated that Lexington's population is going to hit 375,000 people by 2030 which means we need 30,000 housing units, additional housing units by 2030 yet in the last decade we've only created 10,000 housing units so clearly we need to add units to keep up with our growing population now was it an industry insider that was looking to throw out a quote to encourage development. That quote actually came from your director of planning, Jim Duncan. Planning is starting to recognize that we're going to be in a pinch when it comes to housing units if we don't start approving some denser developments. If we turn to the materials that I mentioned earlier, the Downtown Development Authority every year puts out a market study. The most recent plan available was 2015, looking at various elements of the downtown market, housing market and commercial market. the highlights you can find in the executive summary but I enjoyed this particular nugget other positive trends include a growing demand for market rate high amenity multifamily apartments downtown fueled by young urban professionals who are choosing downtown Lexington for its livability factors we think there's a strong market for this and the downtown development authority agrees with us I actually really enjoyed reading the downtown market inventory I had not come across it before I have entered it into the record. I would encourage you to read it if you haven't. It's actually a really neat document. These are different highlights I have found from the plan. I won't go into tremendous detail other than to say that this map here shows where there are rental units, housing units in Lexington. And you'll find that there really aren't a whole lot in the area that we're looking for development. The downtown by and large is trending younger. The average age downtown is about 30 years old. And these are people who want to live downtown because they like to walk in bike places. Lexington has been recognized as a bike-friendly community and has attained a high walkability score. We have attempted to do some things that I think would allay some of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors. I don't know that it's been to their satisfaction, but we have tried to do some things. I'm sorry. I believe that we've lost a... Do we need eight or do we need to have... I think there's a viewing. Let me just check. I want to make sure that the people who are outside the room are in range of your voice and your vision. Hold on. We'll have to pause for a minute. We don't have a quorum at the moment. I'm sorry. We're right on the edge of a quorum with everybody who's here. Do I get to pause? Thank you. So we were at 9. 950. Thank you. And I believe law can correct me if I'm wrong. We went from meeting to meeting. There are some refreshments in the adjoining council caucus room, but there is a TV on that's showing the hearing. If people want briefly to go and get some refreshments, they will not lose the quorum. You just can't go out of the space. Madam Clerk, if you put back 10 minutes Thank you That's roughly where you were I will believe you, I'm nearing the end here Thank you As you can see, we've tried to mass this building along 4th Street We've tried to pull it towards the 4th Street corridor And there are a couple of specific reasons for that One, it allows us to screen most of our parking from public view As you can see, the building and then the swimming pool amenity would screen a lot of the parking from public view. That wasn't a happy accident. That was by design. These are things that are called for in the small area plans and in the comprehensive plans. Additionally, one of the reasons we did that is because if you look at the 3rd Street corridor as opposed to the 4th Street corridor, your more intense zoning categories tend to be along the 4th Street corridor. In fact, you see pretty much exclusively I-1 industrial and R-4 high-density residential apartments. As I mentioned, but for a slight floor area ratio issue, we'd be in R-4 development. Along the 3rd Street corridor, you tend to see a little bit lighter zoning. You tend to see more R-2, though there are elements of the R-4 that reach down there and the I-1. So you do see some higher intensity uses along 3rd Street. But by pulling that building up to 4th Street, we think we've matched the more intense uses that are occurring along the 4th Street corridor. What's on Blackburn Avenue? You may be very familiar with 4th Street. You may not be as familiar with Blackburn Avenue. There's not a lot there. There's a machine shop directly across the street from our development. It's that development right there. The church that you receive the letter in support of our development is located right here. There are seven single-family homes. Four do not have driveways. Three do have off-street parking. And then there are those two empty lots that I mentioned. Calgo Partners actually owns those lots, but they're not a part of this development. Could not become part of this development without going through a rezoning proposal themselves. They are zoned R2, and our intention at this time is to leave them that way. We did receive that letter of support from the Powerhouse Church. They are our neighbors. they approached us with some concerns about their own parking we struck an agreement with them where they would be able to use some of our parking they support our development, fully support our development you're going to hear a lot about congestion in parking on Blackburn Avenue and I want to touch on this because I think it's very important to understand what I think is a perceived issue versus an actual issue, but also what we've done to try to alleviate that issue this is a photograph that was taken on February 16th, that's a Thursday as you can see there's not a lot of parking going on on Blackburn Avenue and I wondered is that really true so I went back through time and saw what's the parking situation on Blackburn Avenue did I break it there we go very interesting feature of Google Earth that I discovered in preparing for this presentation. You can actually go back through time and see overhead photos whenever they've been added to Google over the years on back to the early 90s. So I looked at Blackburn Avenue through time to see if there had been a substantial parking issue there. The first photograph they had was taken on April 12th of last year. That is a Tuesday. As you can see, particularly near our development, really nobody parking on the street. A handful of cars down here. I think I counted six cars that were parked on Blackburn Avenue. The next photo back in time, I got really concerned about because it looks like there's more parking going on on the street. That was taken on a Monday, September 22nd of 2014. But if you look in closely, there was a water main project going on. Several of those vehicles are repairing a water main. Again, not a tremendous demand of parking on Blackburn Avenue. And it goes on. Go back to 2010. Again, by our development, no one is parking on the street. photographs through time taken from Google Street View. Again, going back to 2002, 1993, there's really historically not a problem on Blackburn, at least according to all of the information that was available. That having been said, we know there is a perceived parking issue along Blackburn, and so we had a discussion with the LFUCG Division of Traffic Engineering about what we could do to help alleviate that problem, and we came to a solution. As you see, our development here has a fairly substantial portion of right-of-way that if we were to add to the right-of-way, maybe we could help alleviate the parking situation. So what we've agreed to do is to extend the right-of-way to the edge of the current sidewalk. So the curb that is here now will move back to there. through doing that we get 13 additional parking spaces and we widen the right of way from 29 feet to 36 feet which traffic engineering thinks is sufficient to deal with any perceived parking issues these would be publicly available spaces they're not controlled by us they're in the public right of way and typically traffic engineering would only be able to ask for half of this each side is supposed to contribute to right of way we agreed to give the entire seven feet on our side to help alleviate this issue. I don't think it really is an issue, but to the extent that one has been perceived, we've tried to accommodate it. So to summarize what I've told you here tonight, residential infill was beaten into the ground in all of the plans that address this particular area. We're supposed to have greater density. In fact, the Central Sector Small Area Plan and the Downtown Master Plan call on us to maximize density. We think our plan is thoughtful. We think we've tried to take efforts to recognize some of the concerns that have been raised and preemptively address them. Staff recommended approval of our rezoning. We were unanimously approved at the Planning Commission twice, both during the zoning component and the final development plan. This is a project that we think is very worthy, is very necessary, and we would ask you to support the recommendation of your professional planning staff and your Planning Commission. I appreciate your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. And I will remain here throughout the evening to the extent that some should arise later. Thank you. That brings us to the presentation by opponent. Do you have an organized presentation, or should I just ask people to come in the order in which they've signed up? If you'd give your name and address, please. My name is Mark Klar. My address is 321 Blackburn Avenue here in Lexington. I think what we'd like to do is give those who haven't had a chance to speak before a chance to speak first, and then I think we'll finish up by having Barbara and me and Faith Harder finish our presentation. Okay. Can we get a 30-minute clock? So, people who have not, Mark has not mentioned, are there other people who are signed up to speak in opposition? Avgad. Yes, I think Cindy, would you come up? Thank you. Hi. Good evening. My name is Cindy Bolling. Do you need my address as well? I live at 326 Blackburn Avenue. First off, thank you for granting this public hearing regarding the proposed development at 4th and Blackburn. I've been a resident on Blackburn since 2010, and I bought my home largely due to the close proximity to the Florence Crittenden home, which operated on 4th Street. I worked there for about a decade until it closed several years ago, so I understand the wanting to walk to work. And that property is actually positioned diagonally from the proposed development and now houses a Montessori Middle School. Primarily my concerns with the development are related to space, safety, and just maintaining the current investment of the community in my neighborhood. As the slides have shown, Blackburn is a very small street. We all know each other, look out for one another. About half of us rely on street parking, as well as members and visitors for the church that are there and local businesses that have grown up around now park on the street during events and things like that. My concern is that the proposed development will overpower the amount of parking that's currently available from time to time and that there's a concern that increased traffic for the children who live on the street, children that attend the daycare on the street. I just feel that it raises safety risks as well. Clearly, the proximity to Transylvania and BCTC is not a coincidence, and it's likely that many students and young professionals might take up this housing, which are potentially less likely to be long-term residents of downtown and maybe not be as invested in maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. I am aware that viability relies on continued investment and growth in town. I do not believe that this particular investment or particular development is the right choice for the neighborhood. I really feel that the heart of a town isn't necessarily in its buildings but in its people. And so I would hope that you as a council would help to allocate this space in downtown Lexington to housing that will support citizens that intend to stay, invest in the community, be helpful for people that have been pushed out of this area, or for other businesses and resources that will help enrich downtown for years to come. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Others on the list who are not part of Mark's presentation? Can you give your name and address? I'm Zachary Johnson. I live at 325 Blackburn Avenue, which is the house, I think, closest to the proposed development. I've been there for about two years. I have a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old child who live there with me, and I just don't think that anyone that actually lives on Blackburn Avenue wants this project to take place because of concerns about traffic, concerns about parking, and concerns about just like, you know, we all know all of our neighbors on our street, and this is going to put a bunch of new people in the neighborhood that are, you know, way out of proportion to what it should be. I think if there was a small development there, If there were a few homes, duplexes or something, that would be appropriate for the neighborhood. But to talk about a 72-unit complex seems like it will just not be appropriate for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Greg Capillo. I also live at 325 Blackburn Avenue as well. I just wanted to echo a lot of what folks had already said and also point out that it seems like there is, as you all well know, there's an affordable housing crisis in Lexington, building market rate houses when neighbors are being... Thank you. I'm sorry, Greg. I have to interrupt you. I think you came in after I swore people in, and I didn't realize that. So if you'll hold on just a second, I'll swear you in. Yeah, sure. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Yes, I do. I'm sorry, please proceed. Excuse me. Sorry, I was caught up. Thank you. I didn't work. Yeah, I mean, you know, just to point out what folks had said, I mean, literally everyone that lives on the street is here against it. I think that counts for something, and clearly we would be drastically outnumbered by a 72 housing unit, unit housing development. I'd also just point out the concerns with the market rate housing downtown. It doesn't seem like a lot of those are filled up as they are. I don't have any formal knowledge to rely on, but I think anybody that lives downtown can look and see that those condos have not been filled in, and that's because the real need is affordable housing. To wit, the folks that live in our house are, it's a pretty working class house and it's very disconcerting that this market rate housing is going to raise our rent and price us out of the neighborhood which would be really unfortunate because we want to be there. We do feel like we know our neighbors and that we participate in community life and it would be a shame if we were no longer able to do that. Also, I mean, you can pick Google images of parking on the street but if you're not showing Sunday morning at 11 o'clock, then you don't really have a good idea of the parking situation on the street. Also, talking to the folks that actually live there, they might be able to present a more accurate picture of what parking on the street is, which is that it's difficult to say the very least. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, Mark, of the people that you wanted to bring forward? I'll go next. I would like to start by asking a question. Have any of you actually walked the neighborhood to see what the site looks like and how it's going to be? I think the council is not obligated to respond. No, you're not obligated. I'm not saying that you're obligated. I'd like to point out, first of all, the rest of the houses on the street. Most of the pictures that we've seen so far are really shots of the site, but not really of the rest of the housing. So if you'll bear with me, scroll through. These houses in particular have no off-street parking. So the question is not a question just of the amount of parking, but where will there be appropriate parking. For instance, when my neighbors, I have off-street parking, but when my neighbors come home to offload groceries, will they have to park half a block away and then walk, or will they be able to park in front of their homes? And these are things that we negotiate amongst ourselves. These are sort of unwritten rules that you try to park in front of your house so that others can park in front of their homes as well. The question that keeps arising is a question of density. And again, we're back at the same issue that we had earlier, and that is that all of these plans call for increased density. The only plan, which is the 4th Street plan, the 4th Street rezoning plan, calls for low to medium density housing. It does not call for high density housing. And these ideas of a step back, that is, that somehow this block would afford a way of stepping back from higher density housing to lower density housing is not met by this proposed project. It's too tall and it's inappropriate in that the street cannot bear the traffic that will be coming in and out. I have questions about whether one and a half places per unit is really accurate in terms of the amount of parking. Everyone I've spoken to, including some of the members of the staff, have sort of raised their eyebrows at that. And that there will be more off-street parking than will be supported by the parking provided by this project. What I'd like to do is I'd like to show you some of the other four- and five-story projects that already exist and where they're actually located. This project is the corner of Euclid and High Street. You'll see, again, it's about, I think, a five-story, which is one story more than that is being required. but it sits on, as I said, it sits on the corner of Euclid and Hyde. The next one. This is the four-story structure, loft buildings that are on the corner of Rose and Main Street. Again, similar heights, clearly more intense. is a larger project than what's proposed, but still, these are on main streets. Next house. I'm sorry, this is the same picture from another direction of the same project. Next, please. Continue. This is the housing project on South Broadway. This is five-story, although some of it is also four-story. Again, it's located... Sorry. It's located on Harrodsburg. Sorry. It's located on South Broadway. Next. Here we have more appropriately something similar to what we might find in our neighborhood. Something would be more appropriate for our neighborhood if we were going to have a higher density apartment building. Next project. This is also more of the Harrodsburg, the South Broadway housing project. Here we have four-story. Next. This is across the street. Here we have three-story, but again, it's still on South Broadway. Next. this is the corner of High and Woodland Avenue another infill project but again on a wider street this is newer infill this is the infill that is housing that runs between Walton Avenue and I think Manchester right near Winchester. This is more appropriately scaled for the neighborhood. Next project. This is on Smith Street. This is called Smithtown. Again, somewhat more relevant to our neighborhood. That would be, we would consider to be appropriately scaled for our neighborhood. And the next one. And this one is on, I think it's Pratt Street. This is behind South Broadway. in fact, if I were looking for a model as a project, this would be more of the model that would be higher density and that would fit on the street as well. So, again, our problems are, we are not people, as you can see, mostly they're young people who live on our street. our issues are not with high density or higher density housing on our street our problem is that this is too high density it's too much traffic on our street to bear and there are issues about how well this housing project would be managed so I'll leave it there thank you Thank you. I'm Barbara Grossman. I also live at 321 Blackburn. I have a letter from a neighbor who had a meeting tonight, and she asked that it either be read or introduced. My printer wasn't working very well, so I made just one copy, but I do have it on my flash drive if you want to project it. I don't know whether you want me to read it or pass it around. You can read it and then enter it in. Regarding the development of a four-story apartment complex at Blackburn and 4th, Blackburn Street is a quiet residential street on the 3rd Street 2 3rds and a quiet light industrial street on the 4th Street end. In the evenings, parking along Blackburn is often full due to visitors to the Blue Stallion Brewery on 3rd. Adding a 72-unit apartment complex would undoubtedly mean more parking on Blackburn Street, since overflow visitors to the apartments will park on this street. Since the entrance and exit to the complex are proposed to be on Blackburn, traffic to and from the complex can easily overwhelm this quiet residential street. Having looked up other rental developments built by Cowgill, I found myself uninspired by the designs, and from this perspective, I believe the development will not add anything to the aesthetic of the neighborhood, but will greatly detract from its residents' peaceful enjoyment of their surroundings. Development on Blackburn needs to be respectful of its quiet residential surroundings and incorporate some elements designed to serve as a transition zone from the residential lots to its neighbors so that its presence is not perceived as jarring and overwhelming. By its height alone, this development must be perceived as jarring. And to add to this the overwhelming in-and-out traffic of 72 households, 72 times what number, we don't know, of bedrooms, and potential extras and their guests and the neighborhood becomes anything but quiet and peaceful. I am in favor of rejecting the developer's current proposal. respectfully submitted by Barbara Navin. She lives on 523 West 3rd Street. Obviously not sworn in, but thanks. Now, on my own time, I wish to address a couple of issues. First of all, when a member of the Planning Commission stated in December that she understands people do not like change, I have to refute that. I'm a Donovan scholar. I'm not doing it for a degree. I'm doing it for the enjoyment of keeping the brain elasticized. And I've taken Japanese, a number of design classes, music history. I made a movie. I don't think that you can call me someone who doesn't like change. I think change and challenge are sort of part and parcel of one another. But in this particular instance, I think to appreciate such a drastic change to my block, there'd have to be some sort of exchange, a give and a take. And this massive apartment complex at the corner of a very tiny street will cause an array of problems for the block in the neighborhood. You have and will continue to hear about increased parking and traffic burdens. it's my understanding that Google doesn't go around at night and take their aerial photos. They're doing that during the day when people aren't home. At night, it's a completely different matter. And recently, police had to come because of overflow parking from the Blue Stallion, and someone had blocked someone's driveway, and so on and so forth. And so this is an issue, and it's not a figment of anyone's imagination. and for all of that, there's not a single benefit to accrue to the residents of Blackburn and adjoining streets. The only one to benefit from this development is cowgill properties. For those of us who already live here, there are only detriments. Why, I ask, would anyone want to subject themselves to such completely negative consequences? This is not a change we want. A supermarket would also lead to increased traffic, but at least those of us living here would reap certain benefits. A four-story apartment complex? No, none at all. The scale is way out of line with this tiny street. Secondly, I don't know what kind of neighbor Cowgill Properties will be, the company, not the tenants. But based upon the negative reviews I've found, I can begin to guess. When I first went in search of comments in December, I could find only one, the ripoff report, and that dated back to 2011. That made me suspect that perhaps Cowgill Properties employs one of those reputation scouring companies, and I looked for reviews by individual property names. And what I typically found really made me fairly certain that they do employ some sort of reputation. Who knows what? I don't know what the company is. Sorry, I'm going to interrupt. We would ask that you not engage in personal attacks. Okay. It seems to me where it's going. Well, okay. This is relevant to the... What I want to do is talk about the negative comments on various sites. And there will be something like a tally of this site has gotten 2.5 out of a possible five stars and eight reviews. but there's only one review in evidence now and it's got five stars. Another site with a similar thing, 2.9 out of a placebo, 5, 12 reviews, none are in evidence. I have slides to show that I was culling some of these, copying and pasting and hoping to get screenshots on a particular Saturday when literally they were disappearing before my very eyes. So this is not a figment of my imagination either. I can show the slides with all of these comments that I was able to snag, if you want. If not, that's okay. But clearly, they point to people are free. It's not against the law to want to have the best possible foot put forward. but I guess that it's also equally fair to say that people who report negative experiences with the various cowgill complexes they've rented at make me very concerned that cowgill properties may not be the best neighbor. Forget everything else. So those are my concerns. and I guess if you want to see those slides, evidence, you can keep them if you want. I've asked him to put it on the computer. I can show them. It's up to you. It's just a series of negative comments or tallies where there's 2.5 out of whatever and then nothing else remains. I'm going to rule that those are not relevant to the discussion. Okay. Thank you. Because, can you tell me why? Now I'm going to have to pretend I'm a staff attorney for a moment, then I'll seek corroboration. I think the question is whether this particular development is or is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, or if there are other reasons why it should be approved as opposed to the present zoning. And the reputation of the developer, which a question you've raised, I believe is not relevant to the conversation. Okay. Then I'll just sum it up by saying there is a serious parking issue on Blackburn. There's also a serious traffic issue. And for the entrance and egress to be on Blackburn is frankly horrifying and ridiculous. I don't see, people aren't backing out onto 4th Street. People will make their egress forward. So I don't see how that violates any sort of not backing out onto a busy street kind of, someone told me that that was the problem, why it has to occur on Blackburn. I think that alone would go quite a distance towards rectifying certain concerns, but it still would not address all the concerns that we have, which is that this is way out of scale for this very small block where children live and children attend daycare, and it's just not an appropriate development, and it does not fulfill the 4th Street plan, which of course is not law, but it is what the people of that area requested, and not to really just ignore that this is what people who live there want and what they don't want seems just not wise. And again, I agree with one of the other speakers who said that there are plenty of unoccupied dwellings in the downtown area. I don't know that we really need more right now. I'd like to see some figures that say who's looking for apartments and who's going to be moving in. Thanks. Thank you. My name is Faith Harters. I'm at 539 West 3rd. That is the corner of 3rd and Blackburn, and my driveway comes off of Blackburn. Oh, can I have my... Oh, right. I don't know how well that shows up, but this is from the 4th Street Development Plan, And the part that is labeled 4A clear is the part we're discussing, that 4A little orange circle. And it clearly reads that this is to be medium density. And I was on the 4th Street Planning Committee. It was convened by the Division of Planning. And there were 38 members on the committee. There was BCTC, Transylvania, 1st and 2nd Council Districts, Northside, Western Suburb, Georgetown, and Meadowthorpe. neighborhood associations, a lot of businesses like Blue Stallion, West 6th Street, Dixon Enterprises. The nonprofits were there, Arbor Services, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, the Hope Center, Lex Tran, Lex Park, Downtown Development Authority, Health Department, and neighborhood residents. So I think you will never get, and we met four times, a more informed input into a plan than those 38 people. And out of this, there was just total agreement that some parts of it call for low density, with this, with medium density, that low to medium density is the way we wanted to go in this area. I'd also like to talk a little bit about Blackburn Avenue. Blackburn Avenue is a two-way street, but it's really a one-lane road. You can see the white car trying to come up. This picture was taken on a Sunday. Next. There's another woman. There's no room for the car to pull over and let her get in or out. I can't remember what she was doing. But anyway, she's getting picked up in the middle of the street. Next. That was taken on like a Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon at my house, looking in the opposite direction. That's the old MASH house, Arbor Youth Services. Those people are all associated with, there's one car there that belongs on 3rd, But the rest of those people, they work there. They're a social service that comes in to deal with those people and those children that are there. They have their board meetings there. So they generate a lot of traffic. Next. This is dark, but this is Blue Stallion night. And you can see they're all the way down to the end. Next. and they're trying to some cars are trying to get out and one's trying to get in but that was again Blue Stallion Overflow next that's it, okay one thing is the church they say they're going to have all their parking they have 108 spots but if the church now is going to get to park there too suddenly they're really it seems to me they don't have enough parking for their apartments. Also, the church runs, there's a big safety issue here. The church, of course, is going on Sunday and Wednesday nights, but they run a low-income daycare center there. So that church is going five days a week, dropping children off and picking them up. They have no place to do it. There's no pull-in, there's no parking lot. Those children are dropped off. Well, not dropped off. People park on the street on either side, then they get out and take their children across the street or into that. So that's an added traffic burden and a very dangerous burden. I don't even like it. When I see those cars parked there and some mother gets out with her child, I just stop and wait. But already, as you saw, this street is one lane wide. If you're coming one way and someone else is coming the other way, one of you has got to be big enough to pull over and let the other person through. And I came home on that blue stallion when I went out and took those pictures. I just waited at the bottom of 4th Street until about three or four cars came through off a third, and then it was my turn to come up. I just cannot see dumping 108 more cars onto Blackburn Avenue. So that and the fact that the 4th Street plan is the result of 38 people on four meetings convened at the request of the planning division, and this is what we came up with. And I just don't think you get better input than that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have someone, a last speaker? I'd just like to finish up, sum up. Can you come to the podium? I can't. I just want to emphasize that we are not opposed to change in our neighborhood. We're looking for appropriate change in our neighborhood and an appropriate development that's appropriately scaled to the neighborhood. We don't necessarily expect an exact replica of what the neighborhood exists now. We have to assume that there will be higher density, but that that density should not overwhelm the rest of the street, either in terms of traffic or scale. And we'll leave it at that for now. Thank you. I believe there's nobody else then signed up to speak in opposition. That will allow us to move to additional comments from staff. Thank you, Vice Mayor. There is one comment that I wanted to share with the Council. actually was an item I skipped over in my initial presentation that Mr. Clark in his comments brought to my mind. I failed to tell you how many bedrooms are proposed in this 72 unit apartment building. There are 46 of those units that will be two bedroom and leaving 26 that will be one bedroom. So of the 72 units, there will be a total of 118 bedrooms proposed for this development, should the property be rezoned. There are 108 parking spaces on the site, as we've discussed previously, and as has been represented to you tonight, another 13 are now planned for the property's frontage along Blackburn Avenue. So those 13 and 108 equal 121. So there is a ratio of at least one space per bedroom in this proposed development if you count the new parking spaces that will be provided along the Blackburn frontage of the property. Thank you. Thank you. Does Petitioner have any rebuttal evidence? Please. I will be exceedingly brief. just want to touch on a couple of the issues that have been raised. And the first I would talk about, and I understand concerns about traffic, but there's very little incentive for residents of this development to use 3rd Street. As you all may be aware, 3rd Street is a one-way street. 4th Street is a two-way street. It would frankly make a heck of a lot more sense to come out and go to 4th Street, where you can either turn left to go towards Newtown Pike or make a right-hand turn to head towards additional downtown. there's not a whole lot of incentive to go down 3rd Street and get pinned on a one-way street where you have to turn left to go the direction that you could otherwise go right. So I think that the burden of traffic on Blackburn Avenue may be a little overstated. I don't believe we're going to have a whole lot of access coming from 3rd Street. No housing is going to be torn down to do this development. The sense of community they have today can still exist after the development is put in. And typically when you see residential redevelopment, you see homes being purchased and torn down or developments being purchased and torn down. We're repurposing an industrial property. This property as it's zoned right now could have heavy manufacturing, recycling centers, some pretty intense uses that I don't think would be welcome additions to the neighborhood that would require no action from the Planning Commission at all. We think that this is an appropriate use for the site. make sure i've covered my points oh there has been a repeated emphasis on mixed use i touched a little bit on that in my presentation mixed use would actually generate more traffic than our development if you have retail businesses on the site people have to come and patronize those buildings additionally if you want amenities like a grocery store or retail shopping if you you all may have heard me say this before retail development is all about rooftops how many residence do you have in the area that can patronize those buildings, those businesses? If you want additional businesses, you need additional residential density to support that. That is something that our development would provide. If there are substantial concerns over on-street parking, beyond the fact that we're actually giving up seven feet to extend the road and 13 additional spaces, there are things that you all are aware of that you could do to aid with the parking situation, like a residential parking program. If it's a lot of interlopers and you wanted to keep them off the street, there are options available to combat that. And finally, there were some comments made about the daycare and the church. I would remind you that we received a letter of support from the church for our development. Finally, the final unit count, I want to make sure that I get this absolutely right. My client just whispered it in my ear. Now what it says on the face of the preliminary plan, Mr. Slee may well be accurate. My understanding of our current count is that we would have 38 two-bedroom units and 32 one-bedroom units. That's actually 110 total bedrooms, so I misspoke. There would be two bedrooms in the entire facility that would not be served by a parking space. However, we think one of the prime benefits of living in our development is the fact that you wouldn't necessarily have to have a car. You would be able to walk and bike and do a lot of those things. But when you count the 13 on-street spaces, we are actually over-parked per bedroom. But those spaces would be available for public use. With that... Yeah, did I misspeak? I'm sorry. 38 two-bedrooms, 34 one-bedrooms. That's 110. Maybe my math wasn't adding up. With that, I think those address the key points. There were some personal attacks. We'll just leave those to sit other than to say if you operate a rental property, chances are your reviews are not going to be very good. Other than that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Do those in opposition have any rebuttal remarks? Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what is the configuration of the library. If you have a question, please come to the mic. I'd like to try to have a better sense of how these 13 additional on-street parking spaces on Blackburn are configured, because I can't quite picture it. Is it going to be... We'll get an answer. They're parallel spaces. Everybody close your eyes. That's what I need to say. There we go. You'll need the... I can't see this. May I close? I literally can't see it. I'll use it back here. so this is the visual depiction of our development plan that is the corner of our property which is actually about right there as you can see the curb will come back and there are 13 on street spaces back here for the benefit of counsel that little circle right there represents the edge of our property which is right there there are 13 on street spaces that would be roughly right there So we're widening the road by seven feet and providing on-street parking spaces. If you would like further comment, please come to the mic. Is there a further comment on this or a further question? So where is the entrance actually going to be? Where we see the blacktop now? Probably easier to show on the preliminary plan. This is the extent of the blacktop right now, so it's just to the edge of it. So it'd be hard to see in this photograph, but we'd be back in that area. I guess I'm just not grasping how widening a space is going to allow additional length. It's sufficient for 13 parking spaces, but I have limited vision. Okay, any further rebuttal, either evidence or questions? Mark? Actually, I have a series of questions. One is, has there actually been a traffic study been conducted regarding this? Because there are a lot of assumptions based on perhaps everybody's part as to what the traffic will actually look like with the additional numbers of people. The assumption that everyone will go to 4th Street, or most people will go to 4th Street because 4th Street is two-lane, I think is an assumption. No one really knows that. The fact is that traffic goes back and forth between 4th Street and 3rd Street all the time. I have questions of whether... I know that staff has assured us that sewage won't be a problem, but I was wondering, is there actually a calculation of how much additional sewage is going to be created by this project? There's a question of what type of HVAC system is going to be there. How loud will it be at night? There's a question of that KU is putting up new transmission lines on 4th Street and those are supposed to be installed by June. what is the clearance that's required having these new lines in regards to this new building going along 4th Street. And there's an additional amount of solid surfaces. Where will the rainwater go as a result of these new parking areas? Again, question of scale. Well, this project, you can see, the drawing does not show you the rest of the street. This project takes up about half of the block. Well, half of one side of the block, to be more accurate. Thank you. Summation. Do you want us to address that? If you would like to, yes. My name is Kevin Warner. I'm a landscape architect with Carmen. We did the site plan for the development. And as far as the sewer, we've already filed and received approval. There is capacity in the watershed to handle this additional flow. They've already actually reserved that capacity for this development. As far as stormwater runoff, this development has less impervious than there is existing now. So we don't have any detention required. we do have to treat the water and we're going to do so with a water quality unit on the site. Thank you. Summation by petitioner. I really don't have a whole lot additional to say. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have about this development. I'd just like to underline that this was a unanimous approval by the Planning Commission, that the planning staff found that we complied with all four plans in their spirit, if not an exact letter of everything, and the one plan that is questionable is not an adopted element of the comprehensive plan. It's hard to give somebody four differing instructions and expect you to meet them all. I think we meet the spirit of these plans. I think we would provide a quality development to this community. I think we're providing urgently needed additional housing stock. I'd remind you of the comments of Jim Duncan that we're going to have to come up with 30,000 additional housing units to accommodate the perceived or postulated increase in population that we're expecting by 2030. We think this is an excellent project. We're very gratified to have the approval of both staff and the Planning Commission, and we'd ask for yours as well. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, I'll open the floor for Council to ask questions of staff, petitioner, and opponents. If you would sign in electronically, starting with Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a question. Maybe I missed it, but the 4th Street plan, why did that not get into the comprehensive plan? or be incorporated into it some way? It was considered a study and was not intended to serve as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. There are statutory requirements for any amendment to the comprehensive plan, And I think the effort was put into the discussions amongst the 30-some members rather than meeting all of those statutory requirements. Probably about a third of these types of activities end up being studies more than actual small area plans or amendments to the comprehensive plan. But it was specifically intended not to be a small area plan. Okay. Thank you. I did have one other question, and that had to do with We're talking about this as four stories, but it seems to me, too, there was a concern about the compatibility of how it would fit into the neighborhood. And I have not seen or maybe I've missed what does the design look like? I'm sorry. I'm going to have to intervene. Both the Planning Commission and the Council have determined that because of developers not bound by what they show us, that we are not going to allow that into evidence. So we can't know. I'm sorry. I didn't know that. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a few quick questions. The green areas, from my understanding, the green area in the front of the development, is the developer, can they develop that green space and they've just chosen not to to respect the integrity of the corridor? So it can be developed. They're just choosing not to develop that. Now that they have acquired it, it is potentially developable. There are a few things that would have to happen. From a building code standpoint, they really would need to combine the two properties. There used to be a property line there, and probably as of today there may still be. and to put a building over a property line has tremendous building code implications to do that. So they would have to eliminate the property line. More importantly, they would have to amend their development plan at the Planning Commission and that would have to be approved by the Planning Commission as well. So yes, it is theoretically developable, but based on what you've heard tonight, it doesn't sound like, at least today, that's their intention. Okay. Yeah, if you will. I'd say everything Mr. Slee said was accurate. One additional point, you may recall that I talked about several variances that we sought as part of this. One of the variances we sought was an open space variance. The R5 zone requires 20% of open space for private use. If we were to move the building forward because of the way that the open space is calculated, we would no longer meet our open space. We had sought a variance so we didn't have to get the full 20%, but that variance was not granted. So leaving that strip grassy is how we helped to achieve that. Also, there are some issues with cutting through, getting curb cuts onto 4th Street. So we chose to leave the building along the 4th Street corridor, but with that setback to provide for usable open space. And I guess that's the reason for the design to enter and exit out on Blackburn instead of 4th Street? That, and we can't get a curb cut on 4th Street. Okay. Is it proposed to be on-site management of the facility? Yes. 24-hour on-site management? Not 24 hours. Not 24 hours. Officer. Hello, my name is Mike Harris. I'm the vice president of Calgo Properties. And to address Mr. Brown's question, we will have an on-site manager there that's regular business hours, maybe some Saturday hours, maybe one or two, maybe another person part-time. But we own multiple properties around town. We don't have 24-hour on-site management in any of our properties. Okay. They're normally open during the normal business hours. Okay, and then I guess this wasn't a question more so than a statement. It seems like there's already currently some parking issues on Blackburn that may be alleviated by a residential parking policy. That seems like that may be something that needs to be explored if this zone change happens or not. It just seems like the impact from the brewery around the corner and additional activities in the area, I think may warrant research in the residential parking on that street. That's the only question I have for now. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Some of my questions, they complement Council Member Brown's. Do you know what the width of Blackburn is? At present, it's 29 feet wide. Our extension would take it to 36 feet. Okay, the extension. So it would be 36 all the way down Blackburn? We can only widen to the extent of our property, so we can't widen to their front yards. The city could elect to do that, but we don't have eminent domain powers. There's considerations right now in Public Safety and Planning Committee to alter regulations going forward that if streets are under 30 that we require one-sided parking. I'm concerned about the density of the people here. And I guess the other question I have is for the people that have no driveways, I believe. How many houses have no driveways? Four. Four? And so they rely on street parking. I think that's something that we do need to look at is allowing them priority through a permit process. And the intended renters of this property, are they college students? Are they young professionals? What's the price point? They're considered market rate. I don't know that we've settled on final pricing structures at this point, but they will be market rate. Our intended audience are young professionals. Okay. Because I do have some concern when you talk about possibly college students. All of these universities are spending millions of dollars. Their dorms are nicer than my house. And so I'm concerned if we are marketing it to college students that we're going to end up being empty yet again. Has this zoning for this area always been this way? The light industrial zoning has been in existence since at least the 1960s, if not longer back. The R2 zoning along Blackburn and 3rd Street actually is a result of a down zoning accomplished, I believe, in the range of 15, maybe 20 years ago. It used to be zoned for higher R3 or R4. I can't even remember which. But the R2 is a result of a downzoning that was approved. So the downzoning, when it was approved, is that before or after we adopted the comprehensive plan? It was well before the 2013 plan. It was before the 2007 plan. I can't remember if it was before the 2001 plan. Was 2001 the first time we came out with a comprehensive plan then? Oh, no. We've had them back. And I guess that's my question, is when we have a comprehensive plan that's asking for growth, when these people bought their houses there, I think they had a belief that it would be a type of use that, of course, they're wanting to change. That's all I have right now. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to answer the down zoning question. I worked on it. It was sometime in the 80s that we went from R4 to R2. Council Member Henson. Bill, I want to make sure that I have a good understanding of the surrounding properties. behind is a residential can you bring that the map up or whatever that shows the and I would just on all three sides of the property can you tell me what borders this property Yes. Along Harry Street, we have light industrial uses, some of which I think are tall. They were visible in the photos, but we didn't have any particular photos of those. Across, we have the Transy athletic field and a parking lot and a couple of structures they're using for their athletic programs. This property across Blackburn is the one we had the one photo of from 4th Street that has a building, a lot of blacktop on it. Right. Seems to be underutilized at present. I'm pretty familiar with the area, but the properties directly behind this that you said would not be rezoned, they're also owned by this property owner. Or are they all vacant? Which is the first or the closest property? These two are the vacant ones that were discussed. For those in the audience, it's these two right here. Those are vacant. They are zoned R2. The church across the street is zoned R2 as well. So the photo that I can show you again if you like, but the tree line where the last buildings are is generally where this property line is here. Okay. That's the edge of the development. With the development plan, is a traffic study done? It is not required. Okay. And the only instance in our zoning ordinance that requires a traffic impact study is for what's called a significant zone change. and that is defined in the ordinance as one that generates 100 or more new peak hour trips to and from the site. Generally, a multifamily development, it's in the range of about 200 dwelling units before you hit that threshold. So this one, we would expect then to generate half or less of that amount in the peak hour. Because I was thinking permit parking like Council Member Scotchfield and Brown mentioned, but I was also thinking what about the possibility of making Blackburn, because am I saying that correctly, a one-way from 3rd to 4th Street, or putting in some sort of calming speed tables, something. Because my experience in my district with student housing, and I'm assuming that's what this is going to be, is there will be visitors. There will be lots of visitors. So if we could do something here to prevent that from happening to Blackburn, I guess then I was going to ask if you had met with the neighbors. If I could respond to just one of your items before that question. The only issue with making Blackburn a one-way movement is you're guaranteeing that half of the traffic to and from this development is going to go in front of the existing homes. If it remains a two-way movement, the possibility exists that most of the traffic will only use this segment and not have to use this area because 3rd Street currently is one way in this direction. It may not remain that way. So coming in, they would have to go by the existing homes to get into the parking lot. And that's why I was asking to prevent all this cut-through traffic, and I would almost assure you there will be visitors parking on that street. Is this a comment related to the question that's been asked? Yeah, to the flow of traffic on Blackburn. All of us who live there, if you're going downtown, if you're going somewhere, you're going to go to 3rd Street. There's not any reason why the people that live in that 72-unit complex would have to just use 4th Street. They would equally go down the street. That's just a conjectural or theoretical possibility that they're presenting to sort of soothe the concerns, but there's no reason at all that they wouldn't go to 3rd Street. Okay, thank you. I'd also like to say something about traffic. That shop across the street on the corner of 4th and Blackburn gets 18-wheeler deliveries, and I've seen them try to do it. They cannot make the turn from 3rd Street onto Blackburn to go down. They can't get through that narrow way. And sometimes they try and they get out and they look, and sometimes they back up and go around. So you have got to give those 18-wheelers a way to get into that development across the street. Also on residential parking, remember the residents pay for those permits. So why should we have to pay? Also, all of us have, you know, I've had contractors at my house the last couple of weeks. You know, I come home, there's four pickup trucks parked on the street. The man who mows my yard, the man who mows the churchyard. Saturdays, big work days over at the church, they'll work on the lawn or re-carpet or whatever. All those people, all the people who work for Youth Arbor Services, they all have a legitimate reason to park on that street. And you can't tell them they can't park there because they don't have a permit. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I sit here and listen and take notes. and the biggest concern I'm hearing from the neighbors is the parking and the traffic. And I understand that, okay, because every single one of our districts have cut through streets. We deal with traffic issues every single day. So I do feel and understand your pain. I have several streets that have parking on both sides, and they turn into one-lane streets. So I just want you to understand that that exists all over town, and it is a nuisance. It's a pain, and we struggle every day trying to figure out how to remedy those things. That being said, it appears to me from everything that I've seen, and this council has been known to turn things down here recently. Excuse me, Council Member Lamp, do you have a question? Because we'll have time for comments after I close the hearing. Is this a question for additional information? Well, correct me. All right, yes, I do have questions. Great. Thank you. I'll come back down off of my high horse. Mid-density. Mr. Salee, can you explain to me that the next level of density below what is proposed, what would that be? I think your question was about what is mid-density, which the 4th Street study discusses. Yes. To answer that, let me refer back to the previous comprehensive plan, the 2007 comprehensive plan. In that plan, we identified areas for low-density residential, medium-density residential, high-density residential, and very high-density residential. The current comprehensive plan no longer does that. So this term, mid-density residential, has never been defined. Low density had a former definition, as did medium. Medium generally was 10 units per acre. So low to mid may be somewhere less than that. This proposed density is just over 40 units per acre, given the small size. So mid-density residential, long answer to a very short question, is really not defined. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And I guess I will ask the gentleman sitting right behind Mr. Selle. I apologize. I didn't know your name. Have you all ever been, have you ever discussed with either your council member or a former council member or with traffic engineering anything about residential parking? We have not really. I mean, as Faith said, the question of residential parking, given that the decisions regarding parking in the city have been turned over to the parking authority, at one point we might have been able to get residential parking for free. But at this point, we would have to pay for residential parking permits. and with all due respect Representative Lamb it's not just a question of traffic it is also a question of scale and a question of intensive use and I just wanted to make sure that you understand that the problem with traffic arises from the scale of this development but regarding your question regarding residential we haven't had a chance to talk about that as an option. The reason I ask that is because I think there's an educational component there about learning exactly what that means, and there are different levels of it, I believe. I'm not familiar enough to be able to talk about it right now either, but I think that is definitely something that needs to be looked into regardless of what happens tonight for you guys. So the last question would be, where's the closest park that you all would take your children to? Cullivan? Okay. Which is, if I'm remembering correctly, it's just on the other side of 4th Street, right? No, it's at the end of 6th Street. It's at 6th Street, so it's two blocks away. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. I think that is everything. Thank you. Councilman from Scotchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have one quick question. What type of density is allowed with R2? There really is no correlation between density and allowed use in the R2 zone. So I guess what's the allowed use? Single-family residential and two-family residential are duplexes. The minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet. so that equates to maybe five or six lots per acre at best in a very efficient rectangular layout I can't remember even five units an acre in my experience for duplex development Okay, thank you Thank you. Council Member Maloney Ms. Sally, I need to ask you a question It's on now for whatever, flight industrial Yes, sir Can you give me a list of things of what light industrial could be? It would be a long list. What I'm trying to come to is that we could have 18 wheelers going down this road all day long. Yes, sir. What it is right now. Light industrial is storage, light manufacturing, shops of special trade, a variety of different uses, yes. I just want everybody to know that I'm not saying about the zoning, but it could be a lot worse. I hear about the traffic problems and all that. I'm just concerned what it is zoned now. I have more serious issues about what it's zoned for now than what they're trying to do or everybody's trying to do. Because to me, that should not be with that location for that kind of use. I don't, being that close to housing and all that, I don't support light industrial. So I just wanted you to answer that. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. I have one question myself. Mr. Walburn, you might want to answer for your clients, or they might want to answer. Has you or the developers had any meetings with the neighborhood about this development? We met with the powerhouse church. That was resulting in the letter you got. We have not had a meeting with the other seven property occupants. Okay, thank you. Further questions? Seeing none, I will declare this hearing closed. And what that means is that it's now time for council members to express opinions or concerns, discuss the issues, and or make recommendations for findings. Council Member Scotchfield. Every time, thank you, Vice Mayor. Every time we have a zone change hearing, it's impossible. Because we absolutely understand the pain that it goes through for a resident to have what they have known and what they have bought into changed. If I bought my house and my house was next to a park, I would assume it will stay a park. And that's part of the value that was in my house. In this situation, as much as the zone change is changing, I think the change in the long term is better than what it currently is. I look at all of the surrounding area of this, and you're going to bring more of a family or at least more of a community there than having businesses on your street. I think I have to support the planning commission. And it pains me because I understand what your concern is. Thank you. Other council members? Council Member Higgins. I think we are going to have to move forward in the future conversations with traffic management and work on some creative ways to help make that street more accommodating. I think we also need to figure out if conversations have been had with Blue Stallion Brewery about whether or not their folks are able to be parking there right now. I think it's free for all, but it should be something that needs to be considered moving forward. so I'd be willing to work with you all and help you get some of those issues addressed as well moving forward as best as I could so thank you other council members council member Lamb yes and to just follow up what council member Higgins just was talking about just an example of something that It was in my district, just so you know that things can work out. I had this summit at Fritz Farm development in my neighborhood, in my district, which is a 43-acre mixed-use development. Took farmland, and now it is. It's concrete. It's buildings that are sky high, much, much taller than four stories. And we started sitting down with the neighborhood and the developer, and we started having talks. and now we know each other as a neighbor and so I encourage you guys to do the same if this does go forward because it's amazing how you can grow to be neighbors with the most diverse areas of town. So I too have to support this because we have to create infield but I know there are solutions for your parking. I don't think that you all have had the you haven't had the opportunities to go forward and talk about those yet and I think there are more opportunities for parking to solve your parking issues than you realize so I'm hoping that you'll give that an opportunity and who knows you'll have some new neighbors and you never know what can grow out of that But I'd like to always tell people to try to stay positive and don't dream of the negative, but wait and see. And when problems happen, then you come and you talk to us and we work with you and work out the problems. So we appreciate you all coming tonight because it's very important that we hear from everybody and we hear everybody's concerns and opinions and thoughts. but know that we do have to make sure that we take the infill when it comes forward so that we can make sure that hopefully down the road we don't have to expand our urban service boundary and can protect that. But I just want you all to know that we appreciate you coming here and we also want you to know that I think that there are solutions for you. I just don't want you to think that you're leaving here and you're not going to have any solutions. So thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I will say the same about appreciating the neighbors coming out tonight and advocating for their neighborhood and their street. I think being a part of the process and asking for a public hearing is a big step in inclusion in this whole process. But I do share the same concerns that Council Member Maloney brought up. I'm more concerned about the current zoning of that property and the potential impact that it could have, the adverse impact that it could have on the street and the neighborhood if we don't move forward to try to change it to where it's more complementary and what's needed in the area. And then the mixed use, I know we had some conversation about that, but I would be more concerned if this was a mixed-use development about traffic and parking because I think it would bring more traffic to the area and cause more of a concern as opposed to just strictly being residential property. And what I heard tonight, I do feel a little more comfortable with the ratio to parking spaces compared to the bedrooms. It seems like there's going to be enough parking allocated in this development to address the bedrooms and possible occupancy of these units. And then I'm also thinking about student housing, which I know is a main concern. But there's also a concern in the district and some of the neighborhoods about student housing being in single-family residential units and congestion that is created from that situation where you could possibly have multiple students living in a single-family house, and there's more cars and less places to park. So I think this could be a way to address that concern, which is a growing situation in this area. And I would encourage the property owner, the petitioner, the developer, to work with these neighbors because evidently they do care and have concern about their street and how it's developed. I think you started off down the right road with the church, and hopefully you can continue this relationship and reach out to these property owners. All right, that's all I have. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Higgins. Thank you, Vice Mayor. also there are in the event this past this evening there are noise ordinances already in place for student housing properties in the event that it does become a student housing location just as a reminder and like I said I'll be more than happy to help you all with a lot of other endeavors moving forward in regards to what can be done on the space and from a traffic perspective. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have Jacob Walper, Mr. Walper. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I believe that we cannot at this point admit additional information. I'll check with legal, but I've closed the hearing. I believe only council members can speak at this point. I'm sorry. I have to make a comment. You comment? Yes, ma'am. All right. Well, thanks for straightening me out. I was like, I keep coming back to the parking, and I'm familiar with this area. And Sasha, if you could, as this passes, which I'm thinking it is, and I definitely like Council Member Maloney and Council Member Brown, that the current zone would be a lot worse than what is proposed. but perhaps if parking becomes an issue for the residents on Blackburn then there could be designated, additional designated parking for this development for certain events and parties that may take place. So I was just going to throw that out there. And, you know, working together, I think, is the best option. And, you know, I know we have in committee right now to require, I'm not sure where that's going to go, But I just think it's a real good idea for developers and neighbors to meet and discuss concerns and issues and try to address those prior to these hearings. So, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. All right. Is it appropriate to make a motion? If you would permit me, I'd like to comment, and then I'll open the floor for motion. Oh, well, then I will wait. I didn't indicate that, but if that's all right. That's fine. Thank you. I want to add my own voice to a lot of what Council members have already said. We're at a point in the development of this community where infill becomes increasingly important. and what that means is it's going to be for almost every developable and redevelopable piece of land inside the urban service boundary there are going to be zone changes, there are going to be requests for changes and every one of those is going to have a real or at the very least a perceived negative impact on the people who are adjacent That's been true of every zone change we've heard so far in the last couple of years. I believe that's going to be the nature of the business. And I believe what that means is we have to be extremely careful not to look simply at the impact on an individual neighborhood, but on the larger question of how we're doing infill in the community. So I understand and I sympathize, as everybody else has said, I understand the concerns. And I'm hoping that some of the perceived negative impact will not in fact take place. And I also believe that there are ways to mitigate. But when I look at that property and I think about what it now faces and what now surrounds it. I believe that that is an appropriate infill project. I believe it will encourage more infill in that same area, which is a great place for it. The last zone change hearing we listened to, the council disapproved, but in that case it seemed to me there was a middle ground and that the developers were willing to work with the neighbors to come to that middle ground, and there were many fewer units at stake. I believe this is a good project for that particular spot. And I appreciate, as everybody else has said, I appreciate your coming out. I appreciate your concerns. I have heard what you have to say. And as with some of the other Council members on balance, I believe that we need to uphold what the Planning Commission has unanimously approved. Member Lamb. Thank you. Based on the discussion and the evidence and everything that's been presented today, I would like to move to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact from the Planning Commission for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Henson? Ms. Higgins? Vice Mayor Kay? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Plowman? Yes. Ms. Gutfield? Yes. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. And then I'll move to... I need a motion. Yes. I'll move to approve the ordinance for second reading. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the ordinance for second reading. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. Higgins? Vice Mayor Kay? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Plowman? Yes. Ms. Gutchfield? Yes. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Thank you. That vote reflects passage. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. A motion to second. With an objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you.