# Urban County Council Zone Change Hearing - April 13, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 13, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5331 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5331?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-04-13 - **Last revised**: April 13, 2021 - **Length**: 38,221 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 April 13, 2021, at 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Council, with Vice Mayor Kay presiding. The meeting addressed one agenda item, Ordinance 0787-20, which was approved by the council. During the session, the council took one official vote and heard from two members of the public during the public comment period. The meeting successfully concluded with the passage of the ordinance under consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the April 13, 2021 meeting: **Present:** • Kay • F. Brown • J. Brown • Ellinger • Kloiber • Lamb • LeGris • McCurn • Moloney • Reynolds • Sheehan • Worley • Baxter • Bledsoe **Absent:** • Plomin **Late:** • None A total of 14 members were present and 1 member was absent. No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted one roll call vote during the meeting on April 13, 2021. **Ordinance 0787-20** [timestamp: 9:32] The council voted on an ordinance to change the zoning from a Two Family Residential (R-2) zone to a High Rise Apartment (R-5) zone for property located at 325, 329 and 333 Blackburn Ave. The motion was made by Mr. McCurn and seconded by Mr. Ellinger. The ordinance **passed** by a vote of 11 ayes to 2 nays, with no abstentions. **Voting in favor (11):** - F. Brown - J. Brown - Ellinger - Kloiber - Lamb - McCurn - Reynolds - Sheehan - Worley - Baxter - Bledsoe **Voting against (2):** - Kay - LeGris The approval included amended conditions, with the Findings of Fact modified to include additional conditional restrictions limiting the building height to three floors. ## Public Comment Two residents spoke during the public comment period, both addressing concerns about a proposed zone change. **Jennifer Littrell-Hesseldenz** [timestamp: 7:21] expressed opposition to a proposed R-5 zone change, citing concerns about increased traffic in the area. She advocated for maintaining an R-2 zoning designation instead, arguing that this would better preserve the existing neighborhood character. **Tony Roccanova** [timestamp: 7:21] also spoke in opposition to the rezoning to R-5. Roccanova presented alternative building designs during his comments and emphasized the importance of considering context in both architecture and urban design decisions. His remarks focused on how the proposed zoning change would impact the area's development patterns. Both speakers' comments centered on the same zoning issue, with traffic impacts and neighborhood compatibility being the primary concerns raised during the public comment period. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that drew community opposition. **Zone Change from R-2 to R-5 for Blackburn Avenue** A proposed zoning change from R-2 to R-5 for properties on Blackburn Avenue generated substantial community pushback during the meeting. The rezoning request would have allowed for increased residential density in the area. Community members voiced strong opposition to the proposal, expressing concerns about how the zone change would affect the existing neighborhood character. Residents specifically cited worries about increased density that would result from the R-5 zoning designation, which typically permits higher-density residential development compared to the current R-2 zoning. The opposition centered on preserving the current residential character of the Blackburn Avenue area and preventing what community members viewed as incompatible development that could alter the neighborhood's established pattern and scale. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, participant names, and the final outcome of this contested item were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Ordinance 0787-20 [timestamp: 5:05] The council considered Ordinance 0787-20, which would rezone property at 325, 329, and 333 Blackburn Avenue from Two Family Residential (R-2) to High Rise Apartment (R-5) zoning. The ordinance generated significant discussion with presentations from both supporters and opponents of the proposed zoning change. Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade, Chris Clendenen, and Jessica Winters, who presented various perspectives on the rezoning proposal. The debate covered the implications of changing from lower-density residential zoning that permits two-family homes to high-rise apartment zoning that would allow for significantly more dense residential development. The discussion examined the potential impacts of the zoning change on the surrounding neighborhood, infrastructure considerations, and how the proposed development would fit within the existing community character. Both proponents and opponents had the opportunity to present their cases regarding the appropriateness of the zoning change for this specific location on Blackburn Avenue. After considering the presentations and debate from all parties, the council voted to approve Ordinance 0787-20. The approval means the three properties at 325, 329, and 333 Blackburn Avenue will be rezoned from R-2 to R-5, allowing for high-rise apartment development at these locations. --- ## Decisions - **0787-20** — passed (11-2): An Ordinance changing the zone from a Two Family Residential (R-2) zone to a High Rise Apartment (R-5) zone for property located at 325, 329 and 333 Blackburn Ave. --- ## Full transcript On a hot summer night Sometimes someone you're not Don't wait to see what you like But you know that you're hot in the city Hot in the city tonight Tonight, alright Hot in the city Hot in the city tonight Tonight I'm a rocker. New York! In the city, hot in the city tonight For love, I will love you Hot in the city, hot in the city tonight Tonight, tonight Hot in the city We'll see you next time. Thank you. Okay, Vice Mayor, you are live. Thank you. and good evening welcome it's a zone change hearing and i've got everything in front of me but the number of the zone change if either stacy or abigail could just give me the official number of the zone change that would reason that would be helpful. Abby, do you have that? No, ma'am. Not in front of me. Hold on. I've got it. I'm sorry. I have it now. So this is a plan in the hour 20-00009 Blackburn Development. And I believe that I also need my COVID statement. Vice Mayor, I have mine if you want me to read it. If you wouldn't mind. I thought I had it in my stack and I don't. Please. Yes, sir. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and state of emergency, this meeting is being held via live video teleconference pursuant to 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. Thank you ma'am. You're welcome sir. And then the first order of business is to ask the clerk to please call the roll. Yes sir. Mr. Fred Brown? here thank you mr james brown here mr ellinger yes ma'am vice mayor k here mr clover yes ma'am Ms. Lamb? Here. Ms. LaGree? Here. Mr. McCurn? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Plowman? Ms. Reynolds? Here. Ms. Sheehan? Here. Mr. Worley? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Baxter. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Before we get into the heart of this matter, I want to essentially provide information about how we're going to proceed. And it actually starts with a sign-in sheet, but we have had people sign up. They are in order. They'll be heard in order that they signed up. And when we get to that point, I'll ask them, we'll bring them into the meeting one person at a time. For all of those who are expected to speak on either side, attorneys, et cetera, we need to be sworn in. and so I believe what we're going to do is bring in all of the people who have signed up to speak and we'll see what this looks like when we get everybody in and then hopefully swear everybody in at the same time if that does not work we'll swear them in as they speak but can we bring in all of the people who signed up to speak Perry Kivolowitz, MNC, And I'll lead you to be visible and when I asked you to raise your hand in a minute. Vice Mayor, that is all of our speakers who have logged in at this time. I have marked the list so that if anyone comes in late, we will know that they haven't been sworn. Okay, well, then we'll swear to them when and as they're ready to speak. So if all of you who are visible and present, if you would raise your hand, right hand, and you'll need to respond to what I ask. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thank you very much. So a few more things. We'll move on with the other speakers back out of the present hearing room for the moment until they're ready to speak. A few things. First, counsel for both the proposer and the opposition have agreed to limit their presentations to 45 minutes each, and we will keep time on that. Individuals who are speaking in addition will be limited to three minutes each. as the presiding I'm Steve Kay I'm the vice mayor and I'll be the presiding officer for this hearing and as the presiding officer it's my job to exclude irrelevant make decisions about irrelevant and or repetitious testimony and And we've got the witness list. We have printed materials that have all been circulated to counsel. Anybody who testifies will be subject to cross-examination, and we ask that if you speak, you stay for the entire hearing. We ask that everybody who speaks identifies themselves by name and address for the record. And then the order of the hearing will be as follows. First, there will be a presentation by the planning division staff. And they will be subject to cross-examination. Then there shall be a presentation by the petitioner, also subject to cross-examination. Then the presentation by those in opposition. And that will also include individuals who have come to make statements regarding this case after the presentation. There will also be an opportunity for staff after both presentations to make additional comments. And an opportunity for a petitioner to provide rebuttal evidence. And same thing for those in opposition. This is then an opportunity for a closing summation by the opponent and a closing summation by the petitioner. When we get to that point, there'll be an opportunity for council members to ask questions of staff, petitioner, and opponent. and there'll be an opportunity to rebut what has been said in those commentaries but not to introduce new evidence at that time. After council members have had their opportunity for questions, I will declare that the hearing is closed. And at that time, there will be no further comment from anybody from the public. There will only be discussion amongst council members, although we can ask questions of staff at that time. There can be no further evidence introduced. Council will deliberate and then council will make motions and vote first to adopt findings of fact and then we will have a motion on the underlying resolution ordinance And what I've skipped over is one important thing, and I'm going to ask now that the clerk give second reading to the ordinances before us. Yes, sir. Ordinance number one. an ordinance changing the zone from a two-family residential R2 zone to a high-rise apartment R5 zone for 0.665 net 0.717 gross acre for property located at 325, 329, and 333 Blackburn Avenue, Blackburn Development LLC, Council District 2. Thank you. Thank you. And just one more thing before we begin, and that is a reminder that the recommendation that has come to us from the planning commission can only be overturned by a majority of council so that means eight votes and since there are only 14 council members present it does not make a difference they still need eight votes to overturn so um with that i believe That's all the preliminaries. Unless council members, is anything I've skipped over if you have questions. Saying none. We're ready to begin and we begin with the presentation by staff. So as you're ready. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor Kay, members of the council. So my name is Tracy Wade and I am the planning manager for planning services in the division of planning. Also in the conference room in the Phoenix building here with me tonight is Tracy Jones from the law department. So she'll be here to advise you as necessary, as well as Hal Bailey, who is our senior planner for zoning items. If there are any questions for any of the three of us, we'd be happy to come to the podium throughout the hearing tonight. As Vice Mayor Kay mentioned, the case before us tonight is a zone change recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission, and that is case number PLN MAR20-9, and it's a request made by Blackburn Development LLC. They are requesting a zone change from an R2 zone, R2 family residential zone, to the R5 zone, which is our high rise residential zone. And again, as mentioned, it's about two thirds of an acre and we're located in the 300 block of Blackburn Avenue. Either Mr. Edwards or Mr. Bailey, if you would mind to show my presentation. There are a few things that actually, let's go back to my view for a second. As we go forward, there's several things I have to enter in the record. For a zone change case, we have quite a few items that can be reviewed by council members during the meeting. That's me. And they are all on the Google Drive, which was shared with you earlier today. So I'm going to go through those. And they're numbered in the exact same order I'm going through them now. One, it should be one through nine on the Google Drive. So the first item is the legal advertisement, that website, as well as in the Herald Leader for tonight's public hearing. The second item is an affidavit from the Division of Planning that the required notification was mailed out to those property owners within 500 feet, as well as to neighborhood associations within the immediate area in the correct timely fashion. The third item is our final report from the Planning Commission to the Council. And this document includes minutes from the Planning Commission's meeting, as well as the application made by Blackburn Development, LLC. And then on the top page is the actual recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Council. The fourth item, there were two items put together into what was presented at the Planning Commission meeting. It was a presentation from the applicant as well as a letter from a concerned neighbor. That's item four. Item five, I believe, has two parts. The comprehensive plan as well as the appendix associated with the comprehensive plan. And that's item five in your Google Drive. Item six is associated planning records and studies, and that has three parts as well. The central sector small area plan, which is referenced in our staff report. The downtown Lexington master plan also referenced. The fourth street zoning study. So those three items make up item six. Item seven for the record is the National Register of Historic Places listing for the Northside Historic Residential District. Number eight is the zoning ordinance and I'm not sure that that entire thing got posted on the Google Drive but we have a printed version for the record here. Number nine is the land subdivision regulations which are an associated element of the zoning ordinance and then lastly the staff's presentation materials for you actually aren't in the folder with items to be entered the record but rather under planning staff presentation on the google drive there are also a number of public comments that are made available to the council members tonight and those will be printed for the record to be included with the the record for tonight So with that, I think we can move on to the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Can you click forward for me? Is that an option for us? Next slide. The property subject properties tonight are three addresses located on Black Blackburn Avenue, 325, 329 and 333 Blackburn Avenue. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story multifamily residential development, which includes 36 dwelling units. In that 36 dwelling units for this subject property, sorry, how can you move our picture? Yeah. 55 dwelling units per acre. That's the density proposed by the applicant. And they are seeking this project in association or sort of in collaboration with an existing multifamily structure on Blackburn Avenue at 345 Blackburn Avenue. Next slide. This is our a snapshot of our zoning map for the downtown area and the colored area in the center there is around the subject properties. So those three parcels are shown in white and the colored around it is an indication of the 500 foot notice area. So all of the properties that fall within that shaded area whether it's the purple, orange, brown shades, or yellow were notified of this public hearing as well as the one at the planning commission. We can zoom in a little bit on this. How we're on the north. Oh, sorry. Next slide. We're on the north side of downtown, northeast a little bit. As we zoom in on the zoning map, West Third Street is to the southwest, West Fourth Street is to the northeast, and the three parcels front on Blackburn Avenue, which is just a one block connector between 3rd and 4th Street, parallel to Henry Street. And as we go to the northwest is Newtown Pike. And again, downtown is to the south of this location. Next slide, please. The area is characterized by a mixture of zones. On the previous map, you saw several shades of colors. The purple is an indication of a light industrial zone. So Henry Street is still characterized by light industrial as is a good portion of 4th Street and to the southeast of the Dixon Alley area. In addition to the industrial uses in the area, there's also residential, both multifamily, residential, single family and duplexes. The multifamily exists there on 4th Street at 345 Blackburn Avenue at the corner of 4th and Blackburn, as well as along West 3rd Street. And there are still several single family residences that exist along Blackburn Avenue. I believe I counted six earlier, as well as the large structure directly across from our subject site tonight is a church, the Church of God in that location. If we move on to the next slide, thank you, Mr. Edwards. These are just a few photos of the general vicinity and the subject property. The two photos on the top and left side of your screen and center are the existing parcel and the house shown in the top corner left is part of the subject property and would be planned or proposed to be removed. In the center photo at the top is the two lots that are currently vacant on the site. The top right photo shows the adjacent multi-family development that's four stories tall and that's the property that's located at 345 Blackburn. Sorry can you go back a slide Mr. Edwards? At the bottom you can see a little bit broader view down both ends of Blackburn. On the left hand side it's looking towards 3rd street and on the right hand side bottom it's looking towards 4th street. Next slide. These are the other structures that are located along Blackburn Avenue and again the bottom left photo is the existing church located directly across Blackburn from the subject site. The two structures in the bottom right are the White House is on the subject property and the what I would say is the turquoise house is the adjacent parcel and then on the top slide top of the slide we see three of the existing residential structures across the street and adjacent to the church next one so the subject property has been residential in nature and Since 1969, it was zoned R3. In 2002, the neighborhood actually requested a down zoning of several areas within the general vicinity, and that was along West 3rd Street, West 2nd Street, and Blackburn Avenue. They submitted a petition to the Planning Commission to down zone properties in that area from R3 and R4 as well as I1 to the R2 zone, which is now currently their zone on the property. That down zoning was precipitated by concerns that previous zoning, high density residential, commercial, and or industrial uses could possibly intrude into the neighborhood. The planning commission found that the application to down zone was in agreement with with the then current 2001 comprehensive plan. In addition to that zoning history, we know that the subject properties are located within this Northside Historic Residential District. And the red maroon line shown on this graphic indicates the edges of that particular district. It was established in 1979 and it does include our subject parcels shown with the yellow star. They are not located within a local historic district, however, which is our H1 overlay zone, just this national registered district. Let's see if we can move on. Since the rezoning of the area in 2002, the down zoning, there have been three studies that incorporated the subject properties. One is the Central Sector Small Area Plan that was adopted in 2009. The Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan did include part of this area. Also, the Fourth Street Zoning Study and then, not sure if this one has a photo, but the Downtown Lexington Master Plan as well. Each of those documents suggested intensification of areas located near downtown, that is infill development. These plans specifically recommended that where possible, the city should seek to increase residential density and encourage redevelopment of underutilized parcels. This graphic shows a portion of the 4th Street Zoning Study, which was not adopted by the Planning Commission, but it has been referenced by the Planning Commission in making some decisions for redevelopment projects, infill and redevelopment in the general vicinity. And this area does show that the site was, I think there's a star that shows up. Can you click once? Yeah. The site is shown within the mid-density residential area, just to the south on this view, south of 4th Street. Next slide. As we move into the question at hand, which is, is the zone change requested in agreement with the comprehensive plan? I'll show you several slides about what the comprehensive plan recommends and how the applicant is trying to meet those recommendations. So if we can click once the application that was submitted, the applicant opined that they, the property, subject properties are located in the second tier urban place type. And the staff and the planning commission agreed with that assessment. And within that, can we click one more within the second tier urban place type, a number of development types or end zones are available for applicants, one of those being the medium density residential land use or development type. In the past, our comprehensive plan has designated a particular numerical density associated with development. That is no longer the case. It is a description of what type of development might be incorporated into a medium density residential development. It's primarily intended to be be attached single family like townhouses or multifamily units and the multifamily development, which of course is what the applicant is proposing in this case should complement and enhance existing development through quality design and connections. Nearby commercial and employment uses and green space should be accessible, easily accessible, especially via pedestrian and bicycle modes and also any connections should be emphasized to close by destinations. And then lastly, the comprehensive plan indicates for this land use or this development type that development should include intentional open space designed to fit the needs of area residents and a variety of neighborhoods serving commercial employment uses if possible. Next slide. Within that development type, R5 is a zone that is recommended by the comprehensive plan. And again, that is the zone the applicant is requesting today. Next slide. I'm going to go over a few things in terms of the comprehensive plan that are not appearing on the slide. So the 2018 comprehensive plan Imagine Lexington does seek to provide flexible yet focused planning guidance. And in doing that, the comprehensive plan adopted goals and objectives as well as development criteria. The applicant opined that their development, and click one more time to see the development slide, their development was in agreement with the comprehensive plan. This is their preliminary development plan that was certified, and it is an exhibit that will show you how they believe they are in agreement with the comprehensive plan. First, the applicant indicated that they were expanding housing choices in this area of the community by prioritizing high density and a mixture of housing types. The applicant indicated that by adding 36 dwelling units that are one bedroom dwelling unit, or dwelling unit, they are increasing the variety of housing types available in the neighborhood. In addition, multifamily is not as common in this immediate area as single family and duplexes. So it provides for a variety of different housing types within the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the applicant indicated that their proposed development supports infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area as a strategic component of growth, which is goal two of theme A. In doing so, they've, in proposing this project, they've identified vacant property and the opportunity to infill that property with, again, something the community needs, which is residential dwelling units. The applicant also suggested that their rezoning seeks to maximize development on vacant land within the urban service area. area. And in doing so, they're hoping to enhance the urban form and or historic features of the area. They also state that two of the three lots involved in this proposal were vacant and unimproved lots, which allows for them to be, again, to maximize development on vacant land. The proposed rezoning will increase density within the area. And then They also went further on to say how they were improving pedestrian activity or pedestrian first design in the area by allowing for bike, pedestrian and transit access to the site. Furthermore, the applicant addressed the implementation of green infrastructure on their site. They reduced the amount of parking surface through a shared parking agreement. They have enhanced transit infrastructure through the proposal of a transit shelter along 4th Street. And they've also allowed for safe facilities through that transit stop for all users and modes of transportation. So those were the goals and objectives that they opined that they addressed. And the staff agreed with that in our staff report. You'll see information about that. the criteria for the comprehensive plan, the development criteria, are a distillation of these goals and objectives. And they indicated through their criteria review that, again, they met those requirements of the comprehensive plan. Let's see if we can click one more slide forward. This is a bit of a zoom in of their proposed development. On the right-hand side of your screen, the gray box is the existing structure at 345 Blackburn Avenue. The blue box to the left hand side of your screen is the proposed new structure. So you'll see that they are have share a similar setback along Blackburn Avenue. Both buildings would be oriented to Blackburn Avenue. Parking is to the rear. Those are aspects that are recommended by our comprehensive plan. In addition, the applicant is proposing a landscape buffer along the, in this view, the left-hand side or the western side of the property to provide a buffer to the existing single-family residents along Blackburn Avenue in this location. And then the parking lot entrance is in the middle and then it expands to both sides, the right and to the left. In addition, they're adding street trees along Blackburn Avenue as well as trees within the two buffers to the residential side and to the industrial side. With the review of this application, two conditional zoning restrictions were suggested and recommended by the Planning Commission to you. We'll go over those in just a second. Next slide, please. With the review of the development and the zone change by the planning commission, planning commission members asked for something that isn't always supplied and really is not that common. They asked for a mass and scale study to show how does the proposed development fit in or how is it compatible with the existing area. So on the right-hand side of this slide, you'll see the existing structure. On the left-hand side at the top are the two existing structures, the White House you saw earlier and the Turquoise House. And then as you come down the page, you'll start to see where they've inserted and removed the small house and inserted their proposed development building to show you how that will be similar in scale and mass to the existing multifamily structure as well as the single family home in this area. Next slide. And then back to the aerial view of the subject site with the, again, two vacant lots and one lot with a single family home currently on. The Planning Commission, when they, can we go to the next slide, held their public hearing. There were a number of citizens who spoke that night or that day. The staff made their recommendation of approval in this case because the requested high density high rise, sorry, high rise apartment, our five zone is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan. And these are the goals and objectives I mentioned already in terms of expanding housing choice, increasing density and a mixture of housing, infill and redevelopment, as well as the multimodal options of having the transit stop, the bike, and the pedestrian access for the site. Next slide. Next slide, please. In addition, the staff made a recommendation that the development type proposed medium density residential was in agreement with the 4th Street Zoning Study and also that the justification and development plan were in agreement with the policies and the development criteria established by the 2018 comprehensive plan. Those development criteria fall into three categories, site design, building form and location, and the site creates a residential development that supports pedestrian mobility as well as complementing existing structures along Blackburn Avenue. They found that based mostly on the MAPSing study. The proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for the potential users through the incorporation of enhanced pedestrian facilities along the property's frontage and the enhanced transit stop that meets the development criteria for transportation and pedestrian connectivity. And then the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it works with the current landscape, limits the impacts on the surrounding environment, and increases tree canopy coverage. Next slide. The two conditional zoning restrictions that that were suggested by the staff are as follows. There shall be no external light along the Southwest portion of the structure, which is adjacent to property located at 321 Blackburn. This is meant to reduce the impact of the redevelopment site on the adjoining single family home. In addition, there shall be an 18 foot landscape buffer adjacent to the property located at 321 Blackburn for the length of any principal structure on that site. And those recommendations were made contingent on the development plan, which is very common for the planning commission and the staff to do. Next, we find that the planning commission, next slide, next slide, held their hearing July 16th of 2020. They heard one individual speak in support of the request from the community in terms of infill and redevelopment and housing interests. And then they heard six individuals speak in opposition to the request. And this is a summary of those comments from the public hearing. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission did make a recommendation or voted to make a recommendation to the Council of approval, conditional approval of this zone change with seven members voting in support and three members voting against the motion. Next slide. Again, we generally just repeat what did the Planning Commission recommend as opposed to the staff. They were the exact same findings that the staff recommended to the Planning Commission. Again, this is what I just mentioned a few minutes ago. Next slide. Same again. Next slide. And even the same conditional zoning restrictions. So next slide. So if we can stop share for me, Mr. Edwards. As you saw, there's a development plan associated with this request and the planning commission did approve that development plan and it was certified within two weeks of the planning commission's meeting. So it met that condition. The zone change that you're considering, though, I want to remind you, and this came up this week, that the development plan is an exhibit for the council to consider in terms of how does the zone change agree with the comprehensive plan, but the authority to make changes to the development plan itself resides with the planning commission as opposed to the council. So I just wanted to remind you all that it is information we share for you, but it's not something that you can modify tonight. With that, I believe it concludes my remarks for tonight. I'd be happy to answer questions either right now or throughout the hearing for you. I think we'll hold the questions if that's okay with council. and unless at this point either petitioner or opponent has a cross x I guess I'd suggest you hold those two until we've heard all presentations unless there's objection in that case hearing none we'll hear the presentation by the petitioner thank you Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of council, staff, participants in tonight's hearing. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Chris Clendenin. I'm attorney with Murphy and Clendenin. And I'm pleased to be here tonight representing the applicant Blackburn Development. I'm joined this evening by Mr. Carson Boffman and Mike Harris from Calgill for the applicant. and we are joined by Mr. Kevin Warner, who was our landscape architect on the project, and he's with Carmen Engineering. As all of you are now aware, our project is a little unique in that it involves a request for a zone change to R5 that makes use of and complements an existing structure that is next to us and also situated on Blackburn Avenue. This is an existing development and it was also previously approved for a zone change to R5 a few years ago. Now, normally you'd probably expect the attorney to give the whole presentation, but we're going to change things up a little here and because of his history and because the existing development is kind of integral with our project, I'm going to have Mr. Boffman talk to you and start the presentation and I'll come back later on in the deal and try to tie it all together for you if that's okay. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Carson Boffman for the rest of our presentation until I come back. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. If we want to go ahead and pull up our presentation, we'll get started. We're excited to be here tonight. Mike was not able to make it onto the Zoom hearing, but he might make it in for the question and answers. Give me one second and I'll get this set up on my screen here. All right. So we'll start out in our presentation with a brief overview explaining a lot of what Tracy just explained, which is our site plan, to show you the portion that the rezoning hearing is focused on. Then we'll go in some information about the area to make sure that we're all familiar with the uses and context surrounding the site before going into detail about the zone change request and project. And then I'll pass it back to Chris to, as he said, round it out and finish our presentation by explaining how this rezoning agrees with the comprehensive plan and the 4th Street zoning study. So the site plan you see before you hear is outlined in red. The site plan is kind of two separate things, and some of that was already mentioned. The blue box on the left side of your screen highlights the three lots on Blackburn Avenue that we're seeking to rezone. They total 0.655 net acres and will be consolidated before the development of our proposed three-story, 36-unit multifamily development. This development will consist of 36 dwelling units. Twelve of those are actually going to be studio apartments, and then 24 will be one-bedrooms. The remaining portion of our site plan is the existing R5 development called the Flats at 345, which is owned and operated by Calgill. And it contains a mix of one and two bedroom apartments for a total of 72 units. And really the goal of rezoning the three lots highlighted in blue, if we go to the next slide. Next slide, please. is to build a scaled down but complementary 36 unit development. It'll have the same look and feel that the flats at 345 has, which you see in this photo here. And we hope to add these 36 units in order to meet some of the demands that we've seen to live in this area. Before we go into detail about our zone change request and our proposed project, I'd like to go over some information about the area. And if we go on to the next slide. We'll get started on some of that, so we can go ahead to the next slide again. This site is an infill site. It's located in downtown Lexington on Blackburn Avenue, which connects the one-way portion of 3rd Street and 4th Street. And the closest major intersections are probably Newtown Pike and Third Street, where the railroad crosses that you see at the top of your screen there, or Broadway and Fourth near where the Transie crosswalk is. And this site is surrounded by a lot of different zonings, as you'll see on the next slide. The PVA shows seven different zoning classifications within our 500-foot notification radius. and our site once again is outlined in red here with the blue portion representing three lots up for rezoning. Three of these sites or excuse me three of these zones are non-residential zones and four of them are residential zones. We focused on the 500 foot notification radius because generally it's a standard part of the zone change process and so we want to take a look at the different uses that have filled in in this area as a way of zoning. On the next slide, we'll start with Blackburn Avenue, where our proposed rezoning is located. We have our existing R5 development, the flats at 345, which is shown on our site plan. You have a former machine shop directly across from the existing R5 development that's currently being renovated into commercial space by Dixon Electric, who wrote us a letter of support for this rezoning. You have, as you move up the street, as Tracy mentioned, you have the Powerhouse Church of God, which sits directly across from our proposed rezoning, and also wrote us a letter of support. The rest of the street does transition to be single-family houses, which there are six on Blackburn Avenue. Next slide, please. Fourth Street in this section and within our 500 feet is very industrial. It's mostly warehouses. You have Dixon Electric's contracting operation, which fronts on Fourth Street. There are schools and universities, and then once you pass the railroad tracks, there's a crematory and a recently approved large mixed-use development. Next slide, please. henry street continues the industrial use it's parallel to blackburn and behind our site uses on this street include warehouses a junkyard directly behind our site which you can see in that bottom left photo a grain silo that sits between railroad tracks and henry street an office building and onan glass company who wrote us a letter of support and operates on out of several buildings and industrial lots covering about half the street on both sides and with some frontage on 3rd Street as well. Next side, please. 3rd Street, when you turn off Newtown onto 3rd and cross those railroad tracks, it's still very industrial. The first portion of this street starts out with several industrial lots that are used for storage or parking. It has a brewery, Onan, of course, is there as well. And then as you move down this one-way portion of Third Street towards Jefferson, it does transition into a residential area. You have a lot of single-family houses as well as larger houses that have been subdivided into multiple units and rented out. If we go to the next slide. Our radius doesn't quite make it to Jefferson Street proper. It does reach the backyards of several of these lots and single or multi-unit houses that are addressed on Jefferson. And you can see it does continue that residential use in this area. Most of these houses are primarily rentals. There's only one owner-occupied house in this stretch of Jefferson. And most of those rentals are owned by the electrical contractor that's immediately adjacent. If we head on to The next slide, we knew that this area was very diverse, use diverse, but we didn't know what the 114 parcels within our radius actually contained. So we took our spreadsheet from our notification mailing list and broke it down and found out that 72 of the parcels of those 114 are zoned for residential use, while 42 were not zoned for residential use, meaning the businesses and other uses in the area. Of those 72 residential parcels, only 39 of them are not owner-occupied or rentals, and then 33 are owner-occupied. Since we are here tonight to discuss a residential zone change, I think it's important to look at the number of housing units that are within 500 feet. We found that there's 116 housing units within our notification radius, the majority of which, 80%, are rental or not owner-occupied. And that 80% does include the flats at 345, which has 72 units. And if you don't count those, since they're technically on the site plan, but are existing, rental or not owner-occupied units still claim about two-thirds of the housing units in this area. So it really is a primarily rental market. And given these numbers, we believe that rezoning the site to R5 is appropriate and will, by a fact of its nature, allow us to build this proposed development that will increase the housing opportunity downtown through density instead of expansion. Next slide, please. And that brings us back to our zone change request. We've gone through all the zoning uses and context that this is in. So I'd like to go ahead and get into our zone change request, starting with the description of the request on the next slide. We're seeking a zone change to our five for 325, 329 and 333 Blackburn Avenue. This infill site totals 0.655 net acres. And we intend to build a three-story, 36-unit, multifamily residential development that's classified by Place Builder in the comp plan as a medium density development in a second tier urban place type. We've designed this development to complement the existing development on Blackburn while scaling down the development as you move up Blackburn. To ensure we achieve this and at the suggestion of the planning commission, we conducted a massing study during the preliminary stages of our planning. which you'll see on the next slide. I've taken a couple of the images from the massing study, of which Tracy showed you the whole thing. Starting with the top image on the right side, you'll see the existing R5 development, the flats at 345, which is a four-story building that sits about roughly 46 feet tall. As you follow that red line at the top of your screen left towards the next structure, which is our proposed three-story development, we step down in height to roughly 35 feet, which is about 11 feet shorter than the flats and is actually five feet shorter than the peak of the neighboring single-family house. The bottom image enlarges and highlights that fact and shows that as you continue to move up the street, another step down in height occurs as you go from the 321 property to the 317 property, which is one of the shorter houses on the street. On the next slide, we've overlaid a portion of our site plan that's subject to rezoning over an image from Google Earth to help see our development more in the context of the area. Not only can you see the two houses that were on the massing study on the last slide, but you can also see that our development sits across from one of our supporters, Powerhouse Church of God, and two single family houses. If we move our focus towards other buildings in this area, we can see that a lot of these structures have a very similar footprint to our proposed building. And if we go on to the next slide, I want to give some history on how we got to that point. we started to think about this development in the context of everything around it in the summer of 2019 by looking at the footprint of buildings around it the uses the interest we've seen at the flats 345 the continued development and redevelopment of nearby areas that aren't in our notification radius but are very close by such as the townhouses on maryland and the Jefferson Street corridor or the West 6th Street area, which all led us to develop our preliminary plan and start this zone change process. We knew that prior to redeveloping, next slide please, lots where the flats now sits, they were underutilized. They had decaying warehouses that sat on a brownfield site and that were really just an eyesore to this area. And the research we did convince us that there was a demand for housing in this area. And we thought if we could rezone and consolidate those lots, we could contribute to this growing area, which if we go to the next slide, is exactly what happened. After the lots were rezoned to R5 in 2016, we developed the flats at 345 and added this 72 unit community to the area, which expanded the multifamily housing opportunity downtown and farther demonstrated that we really did have housing demand in this area. And it did that by high occupancy rates. As of today, the flats of 345 is 99% occupied, which means 71 of the 72 units are rented out with people living in them. We believe that once this site is rezoned, next slide, it will have a very similar outcome we want to take the current underutilized existing condition of these three lots which is one vacant dwelling in two flat vacant lots and once again next slide please expand the multi-family housing opportunity downtown through density instead of growing out this proposed three-story 36-unit development will complement the existing development by using the same interior and exterior finishes which have really already become a part of the fabric of this street and area and I think it's also really important to note that this project isn't going to displace anyone from living downtown as this the one dwelling that's on our site has been uninhabited for many years and of course as with any zone change if we go to the next slide stakeholder engagement is very important we shared our preliminary plans for this infill site at a stakeholder meeting on september 30th in 2019 before we filed for our zone change and sent out our first notification letter on april 6 of last year as we kind of worked through the challenges of getting to this point tonight and having this public hearing over the past year we kept working with the neighborhood. We met with them two more times virtually and distance in person and communicated over email with folks who expressed interest or questions about the project or directly to our team or through our website. These talks led to many changes, some of which you see here, which of these, I think the traffic calming measures are probably one of the most important. And it also led into several letters of support, including, next slide, please. A few that I've already mentioned, Dixon Electric, who owns property on Jefferson Street, 4th Street, and Blackburn Avenue. St. Peter Claver Church, which is located on the corner of 4th Street and Jefferson. Onan Glass, who operates on Henry Street and on 3rd Street. And Powerhouse Church of God, which is directly across Blackburn from our site. The result of engaging with all these stakeholders and others in the area led to the next slide, which will bring us back to our site plan, which is once again outlined in red. More importantly, I think that the, or we think that a portion of this site plan that's subject to the rezoning tonight, which is on the left side of your screen, would be a valuable addition to the housing opportunity downtown once rezoned and constructed. Next slide, please. While we do look forward to continuing our investment in the area, which is vibrant and growing, we understand that infill development still has to comply with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and other studies that relate to the area. Chris Clendenin is going to go ahead and take over from here to explain how our proposal does this before concluding our presentation. Chris, you want to take it from here? Thank you, Carson. Go to the next slide, please. Thank you. As all of you are aware, one of the main things that an applicant has to show is that their zone change request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Wade did a very good job of showing where ours did, but I want to touch on it once again as we conclude our presentation. If you go to the next slide, please. Our project will assist in growing successful neighborhoods, which is one of the goals and objectives of the comp plan by expanding housing choices. Once again, what we're going to be doing is adding 36 multifamily units to an area that's presently zoned to have six dwelling units. And so what we're going to be doing here, and one of the themes and goals, again, of the comp plan is prioritizing higher density mixture of housing types and adding more choice to the demand for this type of housing in Lexington. This project is also what I would consider to be a textbook example of infill and redevelopment, and that fits also in with the comprehensive plan. We're taking two vacant lots that are unimproved and a third lot that has one single family structure on it that's actually been vacant. My understanding is for the past four years, and we are taking those and converting that to a structure that will provide 36 new dwelling units for the much sought after multifamily housing that we need in our community. And again, it also will provide well-designed neighborhoods by increasing housing opportunities, as we talked about, preserving the urban forest. We're going to be increasing the tree canopy that's already there. We're going to be looking at an enhanced transit station along 4th Street, where there currently is a bus stop. What we're looking to do is place a shelter to make that more attractive to ride the LexTran. As Carson mentioned, we've input and are pledging to do traffic calming measures along Blackburn Avenue. And we've expanded the sidewalk to be exactly in line with the existing sidewalk that's there for 345 at the flats. but we're also really concerned and making sure that we're primarily concerned with pedestrian safety. In addition to that, we're going to, as we've already mentioned, emphasize multimodal options. Again, the enhanced transit stop for LexTran. Also, what we're going to do is we have bike racks that we're going to propose and make sure that we are encouraging bike use and also promoting the town branch and legacy trail through a mapping system where we're going to show how you connect from our development to those biking trails. And in addition to that, we're going to apply environmentally sustainable practices. On our amenity space where we have hard services, we are pledging to use, which I'm sure you're all familiar with, permeable pavers, so that we redirect stormwater runoff and make sure that that's not an issue and make sure that we do the best use of trying to minimize stormwater damage. Next slide, please. okay also by providing these these housing opportunities and the demand and the demand that's occurring for these we're going to help attract the world's finest jobs and encourage entrepreneurial spirit and make lexington in this area of town kind of a recruiting hot spot there's lot of things happening in this area and our development is only going to enhance that. We're also going to be another theme and goal is working to achieve an effective comprehensive transportation system as we mentioned, the pedestrian, the bicycles, and the enhanced sidewalk. Next slide please. Last but not least, we're going to help preserve the urban service boundary. I know that's a goal and has been a goal of planning. The planning staff and the planning commission and the city has made the decision that they're going to build up, not out. For right now, we're not expanding the urban service boundary. this is another goal and theme and objective of the comprehensive plan that's exactly what we're doing here we're taking three lots that have one existing structure and turning them into a multi-family housing opportunity that will provide housing with 36 multi-family units next slide please in addition to being in agreement with the comp plan as miss wade mentioned, this is a small area plan, a study, even though it wasn't adopted, this is frequently referenced. And this would be the 4th Street Zoning Study. This was conducted in 2013 and 2014, and it was initiated by the Irving County Government, BCTC and Transy, because they are two big players in the area. And in addition to that, there was a community advisory group that was put together and they and that group consisted of some neighborhood associations some local area businesses and a few local residents were part of that community advisory group and all of them participated in this study and so let's take a look at some of the results from that we go to the next slide please okay now while they were doing the study one of the things they noticed was opportunity districts is how they determined them to be. That was a term that was used by the study. And they identified an issue with, in particular, our area where our site plan is along the 4th Street and Blackburn area where Ms. Wade had demonstrated and showed to you where there was a mid-residential, mid-density residential opportunity. Well, this is where a lot of this came from. And one of the issues they identified was the various and different types of zones in the area. And they labeled this as a difficult situation. And the study kind of identified that there's a little bit of a challenge with the industrial and the residential in the neighborhood kind of abutting up against each other. And one of the things that came from the study being conducted was there's a potential opportunity for zoning. And what they came away with was increasing the residential, you know, the density as far as residential to mid-density residential involving infill and redevelopment guidelines. And that's exactly what our project does. If we could go to the next slide, please. Okay, here's other recommendations from the study that we feel that our plan and our project is in agreement with. Increasing the residential density that exists currently, the setback distances that should be considered in design, And we've talked about that and how our structures are proposed to be setting back from the right-of-way, building height transitions. And you saw that with our massing study, because what we've got in the existing structure with flats is a four-story development where we step down to a three-story development. And in reality, if you look at the top of the contiguous property at 321 Blackburn, the top of that property with the structure is actually higher than our proposed development. So that's what we're talking about, building height transitions being considered. we took that into consideration where we did a step down from four stories down to three and and we took into consideration the pedestrian infrastructure including biking a wider sidewalk and the enhanced transit. Next slide please. And there this slide just illustrates what I was just talking about pedestrian first building height transition increase in density and setback of the building from the right of way we could go to the next slide please okay we think we deserve approval and we'd like your approval and here's why we're requesting it our project and our request agrees with the goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan which is the one that's currently in existence. It's very much in agreement with identified opportunities that are contained within the fourth street study. Our zone change, our request, is recommended for approval by this planning staff. They think it's a good idea and in agreement with what they think and that needs to be done in this area. And the planning commission has recommended approval. They've looked at this, They've vetted it. They think that it's worthy of approval. Next slide, please. Thank you. Now, with that said, I want to thank everybody for your time and consideration of our requests. This concludes the portion where we're doing our presentation and we're ready to answer any questions that you have, but I do want to make mention of one thing. My understanding that that the council members received as part of an exhibit today or a mailing a brief that was that is in connection with me mr mr clandanna yes that's not going to be a part of this hearing okay i just want to object for the record my vice mayor if i may that's fine okay Well, if you know what I'm talking about, then I want to just make my objection note for the record. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. If we have any questions, our group would be happy to answer them at this time. If you want to defer, that's fine too. I would suggest that we defer until we hear from the opponents and then we'll open it up. so if uh miss winters if you're ready we'll now hear from the opposition thank you uh good evening council members and thank you for your time uh chris if you want to go ahead and start the presentation that would be good please Sorry, I'm just waiting to see. There we go. Everything is actually going so smoothly considering. I don't want to jinx myself, though. Okay, hang on a second. Okay. Okay, and you can just, Chris, I'll just say next slide whenever it's time for the next slide. So you're on that first slide there and I'll be there for a while. Good evening, council members. My name is Jessica Winters. I'm an attorney here in Lexington and I've lived and worked downtown since I graduated UK law school in 2003. I'm going to spend a little bit of my presentation time talking to you about the individuals who I represent, and so that you can understand the nature of the opposition and the character of the neighborhood and the investment that these folks have in their neighborhood. So I'll start with myself. I lived first on Hampton Court on the Third Street, and I've lived in an historic home at 421 West 2nd Street for the last 15 years. I also worked downtown in a historic building on South Broadway that's been converted into offices and apartments. My husband and I started the street art festival known as Prohibition, and we've actually brought dozens of international muralists to Lexington, including Cobra, who painted our iconic Lincoln mural. I've been heavily involved in historic preservation efforts and initiatives to make Lexington a more attractive community. I served on the board of the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. I've been involved with local government focus groups and I've given a lot of my time and energy to helping our neighborhoods maintain their character while evolving. evolving. I speak to you tonight as an active member of our community, as a resident and member of the Northside neighborhood in which the properties for which the zone change is being sought are located, and as an attorney on behalf of several concerned residents who have the same goal as you no doubt do, which is to help Lexington continue to grow in a positive direction into an even more vibrant city than it is today. My client, Livable West Lex, is in fact a collective of residents of West Lexington organized for this very purpose. Livable West Lex describes itself as a group of neighbors that value and feel development that will contribute to a vibrant downtown community for the long term and preserve and complement our historical architecture and unique neighborhood character. I am also here on behalf representing 11 individuals who live in the area that will be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning. Mark Clark, who lives at 323 Blackburn Avenue, which is the house directly adjacent to the subject properties, has lived in and has been working on rehabilitating his home for 15 years. Daniel and Rhea Durek, who live with their children, our young daughter, at 322 Blackburn Avenue, have been residents on Blackburn for approximately five years. They've been actively involved in the community and have been on the board for the Town Branch Trail since 2015. Ria just opened a new restaurant in the renovated Grayline Station on Loudoun Avenue. Faith Harvers, who has lived at 539 West 3rd Street for more than 30 years. She has been actively involved in the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, Small Area Plan Meetings, the Board for the Northside Neighborhood Association, and the LFECG Historic Preservation Commission. I also represent Jeremy Crampton and Kara Hoover of 530 West 3rd Street. They lived in their home for 10 years and they are both professors who have worked to rehabilitate their historic home and have actually encouraged family members to to move to the downtown Lexington area and do the same. I represent Evelyn Knight from 516 West 3rd Street. She's been living in the neighborhood for 15 years and is a former board member of the Isaac Murphy Memorial Garden and is an advocate for local economic development. I represent Tony Roccanova of 466 West 6th Street. He's a professor at UK in architecture and has been a resident of this area for at least 30 years. He moved into the neighborhood when it was taking a chance to invest in this area and has worked for the revitalization of this community. I represent Robert Shum at 547 West 3rd Street. He's an oncologist at UK and he's new to the neighborhood. He says he bought the house because of the beautiful, unique, historical character of the neighborhood. I represent Julie Fultz of 330 Blackburn Avenue. She's the basketball coach of the Transylvania women's basketball team and has lived in the neighborhood for five to six years. I represent Kyle Ploman, who has lived at 543 West 3rd Street since 2013. His backyard is two lots away from the proposed development site. He is a volunteer board member for Seedleaf, which helps build community gardens and educate gardeners in the Northside neighborhood. We have also submitted to you a petition in opposition to this zone change request signed by 104 individuals, including several prominent architects. The grassroots efforts that have led to the coordinated opposition you see here tonight is a wonderful example of community organization for a common good and a common goal. The organization and individuals I represent here tonight are active community members who are invested not only financially in their homes and properties, but also by way of time and energy are invested in the health and development of Lexington. They have a stake in this issue, and as residents are invested in, if not more so than the applicant in what happens on Blackburn Avenue tonight, they are not opposed to infill. They are not opposed to development. They understand that their neighborhood will change and that change is essential. The overarching goal of my clients and the others you will hear from tonight is to inform you as our city council of the manner in which the proposed rezoning will impact their neighborhood so that you as the decision makers can ensure that infill development in our neighborhood is responsible development that is not destructive of the fabric of our community. This is a concept that has been deemed essential and can be seen throughout the comprehensive plan. development must satisfy the goals and objectives of our comprehensive plan it seems as something we can all agree on what you have to decide tonight is whether the proposed zone change and development for the subject properties on blackburn avenue will be destructive of the surrounding neighborhood or whether it represents the type of infill and development that we want and need in this community our position on this matter is that the zone change request before you tonight which seeks a drastic upzoning from two-family residential R2 zone to the high-rise apartment R5 zone for properties at 325, 329, and 333 Blackburn Avenue will be destructive to the neighborhood and does not satisfy the goals and objectives of our comprehensive plan. Next slide, please. I have a video for you to consider at this point in the presentation. Stand by for the video, please. Where is it? Where is it? Let's see. Chris, I don't think the video is showing on the screen. It is not visible. Maybe restart? Stand by. Yeah, let me start. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And then we'll go back to the presentation on the next slide, please. Thank you. I believe we're on slide five, Chris. Thank you. The applicant seeks to change the zoning for three lots mid-block on Blackburn Avenue from R2 to R5. Looking south on Blackburn Avenue, a local roadway that connects West 3rd Street and West 4th Street, the zoning on both sides of the street is exclusively R2. The proposed rezoning will pull the high intensity use that is associated with the R5 zoning at the corner of Blackburn Avenue and 4th Street into the historic neighborhood. Next slide. The subject properties are residential in nature and were zoned planned neighborhood residential or R3 at the time of the comprehensive rezoning of Fayette County in 1969. They remained zoned R3 until 2002 when the residents of West 3rd Street, West 2nd Street and Blackburn Avenue submitted a petition to the planning commission to down zone from the established zoning to the R2 zone. The down zoning was precipitated by concerns that under the previous zoning, high density residential and commercial and or industrial uses would possibly intrude more into the neighborhood and could eventually dominate what was primarily a single family residential area. The planning commission found that the application to down zone these parcels was in agreement with the land use element of the 2001 comprehensive plan, which recommended medium density residential use for the area. Next slide, please. Blackburn Avenue is part of the historic north side neighborhood, which contains mainly single family and R2 zoning. Next slide. The north side historic residential district is a national Register Historic District, which encompasses 40 blocks and approximately 1,700 structures, the vast majority of which are residential. These next few slides show images of the historic homes within one to two blocks of the subject properties. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. This slide here shows the property that is to be demolished, which is the White House to the right, and then Mr. Clark's house, which is the teal-blue house right next to it. Next slide, please. The proposed rezoning will result in the demolition of an historic structure that was constructed in 1910, which still retains many original features and could be renovated and utilized as housing stock, thereby increasing density. The next few slides will show you the historic home and demonstrate that it is in serviceable condition. Next slide. Next slide. Next. Next. Next. Next. Next. Next. Next. This description of the neighborhood that I've provided to you just now is a little bit different than the picture painted earlier by Mr. Boffman. Mr. Boffman's presentation focused more on the areas off Blackburn area, not those parts of the neighborhood that will be most impacted by this proposed rezoning. Now that you have an idea of the character of the neighbors, the neighborhood, and the structures that will be directly impacted by the requested zone change, I'd like to explain to you how we got here. And that begins with the rezoning of 345 Blackburn Avenue. While the subject properties have not been the subject of rezoning or development, the property located on the corner of Blackburn and 4th Street at 345 Blackburn Avenue has been the subject of three zone changes over the last 50 years. The most recent rezoning led to the development of the flats at 345, which is a four-story development with 72 dwelling units, a density of 41.86 dwelling units per net acre. It's notable that during the zone change hearing associated with the rezoning of 345 Blackburn, which took place in December of 2016, it was stated several times that the approval of the requested zone change was appropriate because the large-scale high-intensity development would front the 4th Street corridor rather than Blackburn Avenue and was located on the edge of Blackburn Avenue. It was represented then that the corner lot position of the development meant that it would not intrude onto the single family residential character of Blackburn Avenue and West 3rd Street and that the vacant lots at 329 and 333 Blackburn, the site of the zone change currently proposed, would serve as a buffer between the high intensity development at 345 Blackburn Avenue and the rest of the street. I have a couple of videos for you on the next couple of slides, Chris. These are taken from the zone change hearing in connection with 345 Blackburn Avenue to demonstrate the importance of the at the time of these buffer sites that we're here about today, which will be eliminated if the current zone change is granted. There are two vacant lots here where there are no structures that we don't currently control but will actually effectively serve as somewhat of a buffer between the existing single-family residential in the area in our proposed development. And then I did also... Please point it out to me. Bear with us. We'll get it here momentarily. First of all, I want to say we certainly respect the concerns of the neighbors. And we actually have taken pains in the design of this to try to isolate what we think are some of the effects and pull them away from the existing neighborhood by massing the building closer to 4th Street. We think we respect. We're mindful of the significant height difference. That's why I pointed out those two vacant lots to you. There is a natural buffer. Now, that was a specific question that was asked, so let me address it. Yes, Mr. Cowgill is attempting to purchase those lots. I believe he intends to either has or will soon close on them, although I only learned that while those questions were being asked. What I can tell you and what I can represent to the neighbors is that, based on the zoning differences in the area right now, we can't tack this on to our development plan without a zone change. We'd have to bring it into R5 to let it have anything to do with this. What use is envisioned? I don't know. I think it was just an opportunity was presented to purchase the lots at a reasonable price, and my client took advantage of that. But those lots have nothing to do with this development, and in fact will provide a buffer from the existing single-family residential. Next slide, please. The video transcript of the zone change hearing makes it clear that this buffer zone for the neighboring R2 properties, which is shown here on this next slide, was important to the decision to approve the zone change and development plan for 345 Blackburn. Thank you, Chris. Next slide, please. Okay, stand by please. We have a little bit of difficulty here. Stand by. is a photo here of the buffer zone it's actually doubtful that the rezoning requested for 345 Blackburn on the corner of Blackburn and fourth would have been approved if the development as presented at that time had included the properties now in question okay if this zone change is approved the applicant will have obtained rezoning allowing for a large-scale development in two phases, it would likely not have been approved if proposed as a single development plan. Next slide. The neighbors do agree that the proposed development site is within a second tier urban place type. In reviewing the comprehensive plan and place builder, second tier urban neighborhood provides a transition between downtown, this one anyway, provides a transition between downtown and the Newtown Pike area. Next slide, please. The neighbors endorse the themes and goals of the Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan and are supportive of efforts to increase density and expand options for mixed use and mixed type housing in a responsible way, while maintaining the historical and pedestrian friendly character of their neighborhood. Imagine Lexington describes second tier urban as being an area in which, quote, quote, significant infill and redevelopment opportunities exist in order to complement the urban core. While not expected to be as intensely developed as the downtown core, high-rise opportunities are not precluded, provided that measures are taken to address the adjacent context. Furthermore, Imagine Lexington outlines a specific priority regarding second-tier urban for development, which is to ensure that it is, quote, in relation to the surrounding historic context. Next slide, please. The most suitable development types and second-tier urban include medium density residential, medium density high density residential, and high density residential. The R5 zone, which is a high density zone, is listed as a recommended zone. However, it should be noted that the Imagine Lexington comprehensive plan specifically states that high density residential development quote should be located on corridors and downtown and that's a-dn1-1 blackburn avenue is not a corridor it's a narrow local road furthermore due consideration must be given to the site-specific fourth street zoning study which calls for lower intensity medium density residential black residential development for blackburn avenue next slide appropriate zoning for Blackburn has in fact been more specifically considered in connection with the fourth street zoning study which you've already heard about this evening I am here to point out to you that it actually recommends a medium density residential development for this street now you have been told earlier tonight that an r5 zone is medium density and the neighbors disagree with that assertion and we're going to explain why the requested drastic up zone change from R2 to R5 is an example of spot zoning at the will of a sole non-resident investor that is not supported by the neighborhood and is without a view to the possible long-term impacts on the neighborhood. Prior land use studies in the area have recommended down zoning of the parcel. The neighbors achieved down zoning of the parcel and these studies have indicated that medium density, mixed use developments are more appropriate. Next slide, please. Blackburn has enjoyed 30 to 40 years of gradual restoration and revitalization without displacement of area residents. Current zoning allows the continued organic evolution of the neighborhood without the destruction of the historic fabric. Since the down zoning of the area in 2002, there have been three studies that incorporated the subject properties. The downtown Lexington master plan, the central sector small area plan, and the most recent fourth street zoning study. Next slide, please. The fourth street zoning study was initiated after the Bluegrass Community and Technical College put the finishing touches on its Newtown Pike campus master plan. The study notes that not far in either direction from that campus are a number of emerging use districts, including the Jefferson Street, Newtown Pike, and Georgetown corridors, which were evolving and warranted further consideration of the appropriate land uses in the area. And I'm quoting from the study, quote, in response to increasing pressures and interest from local institutional organizations and neighborhood advocates, the study was conducted. The study states that, quote, this analysis is intended to better understand the implications of current zoning patterns and provide recommendations for potential changes or updates going forward that reflect community goals and visions. The fourth street zoning study identified Blackburn Avenue as a quote opportunity district which you've already heard this evening but the study defined an opportunity district as an area with rising development pressures. The study emphasized the need for uses within the Blackburn Avenue area that will aid in the transition from more intense uses to single-family neighborhoods and recommended that the zoning density should reflect these transitions. And that is what we'll be missing on Blackburn Avenue if this requested zone change is approved. The study recommended medium density residential for Blackburn Avenue. The Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan specifically states that area-specific land use studies, such as the 4th Street Zoning Study, should be considered in connection with decisions regarding growth, land use management, and context-sensitive development. Next slide, please. Under the COMP plan, medium-density residential should, quote, include intentional open space designed to fit the needs of area residents and a variety of neighborhood-serving commercial and employment uses. Next slide, please. If you study this image closely, you can see that there is no green space provided, and there are no businesses integrated into the development, and the development provides no neighborhood serving use. Only luxury housing units that are actually smaller in size than the Kentucky Housing Corporation's published standards for affordable housing. Next slide. The proposed R5 zone is a high density, not a medium density zone. Next slide. The current average density in the Blackburn Avenue R2 dominated corridor is 10 units per acre. This is medium density development. The R5 upzoning is being requested to permit construction of the three-story multifamily residential structure that will contain 12 efficiency units and 24-1 bedroom units. The proposed density of the development is 55 dwelling units per net acre. This density is exponentially more intense than the neighboring R2 properties and is one-third higher even than the density at the nearest R5 zone property at 345 Blackburn Avenue, which faces the 4th Street corridor. 345 Blackburn Avenue has 42 units per acre. Next slide. While the current comprehensive plan does not contain a definition of high density or medium density, context can be provided by the 2007 comp plan, which defined medium density residential as containing 8 to 10 units per acre. High density residential was defined as raging from 10 to 25 units per acre, and very high density residential was defined as ranging from 25 to 40 units per acre. Again, the requested zone change will permit the construction of a development that comes in at a staggering 55 dwelling units per acre. A review of the current zoning ordinance reflects that R5 is the highest density residential zone. The zoning ordinance calls R4 the high density apartment zone. R5, called the high rise apartment, is higher density. It is the highest density residential zone in our ordinance, which the applicant is seeking to put into a neighborhood that has been recommended for medium density residential and field development. Next slide. The current medium density residential zoning allows for significant development. Next slide. The existing R2 zone allows for increased density through the development of site appropriate medium density residential structures that respect the context of the historic neighborhood, such as townhouses, small fourplexes, or courtyard apartments. The development of this type of, quote, middle housing is actually prioritized by the comp plan, which points out that such development is currently largely missing from Lexington's housing inventory. Encouraging the type of development that is already allowed within the current R2 zone fits within growth policy 9 of the comp plan. This growth policy titled, quote, support the missing middle housing types throughout Lexington, states that historically Lexington and many other cities were built with a mix of housing types that included single family homes, small fourplexes, carriage houses, stacked duplexes, and courtyard apartments, and walkable neighborhoods that were the fundamental building blocks of the city. The plan states, and I quote, that many of these neighborhood features became non-conforming uses and slowly disappeared. And I continue quoting, today, those remaining neighborhoods, such as Chevy Chase and Kenwick, which are commonly known as the missing middle housing, are highly sought after for infill and redevelopment activities due to their ability to provide amenities like walkability and achieving higher density without the perception of overcrowding. The neighbors are supportive of infill development and increased density that is aimed at an affordable mixed housing and in accordance with design policy 8, which is a mixture of residential office and retail. The vision of the neighbors and livable Westflex is harmonious with that of the comp plan's vision for incremental development, encouraging development that acts as a buffer between the higher use on the corner of Blackburn Avenue and 4th Street and the development that exists on the rest of Blackburn Avenue. The group welcomes compatible, context-sensitive new development guided by community planning for new growth, like the 4th Street Study. Livable West Blacks understands that the vulnerable western edge of this historic neighborhood needs protection from unsuitable encroachment and destabilization. The requested R5 zone is necessary to allow for a development of a large scale. The change allows the development with a diminished parking space requirement, less restrictive yard to height ratio, and the destruction of the existing tree canopy. These changes concern livable west legs and the neighbors. Furthermore, upzoning from R2 to R5 actually narrows the mix of densities and allowable uses and allows potential uses that are wholly incompatible with neighborhoods, including extended stay hotels and dormitories. Given that the current zoning will allow for increased development and the requested zone change will allow for developments of a nature that are destructive to the neighborhood and are incompatible with its surroundings, there should at least be some consideration of the manner in which density can be increased within the structure of the current zoning. Next slide. These next slides will show infill development that has been achieved within R2 zones and R1 zones in the nearby neighborhood. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. There is no demonstrated need for the requested zone change. The applicant and the planning staff assert that the requested zone change and accompanying development plan promote the comp plan's objective of increasing density and increasing housing options. This goal can be accomplished within the existing zone and with development that respects the character of the neighborhood, and there's no demonstrated need for the drastic change. In fact, the proposed development will be built for and marketed exclusively to students. And we know this because we see what has already happened with 345 Blackburn, which is essentially going to be an extension of this proposed development. This development will not accommodate the needs of young professionals or the elderly to housing populations that have been identified as underserved in the current housing inventory. In addition, the housing will be luxury student housing with the lowest price per unit coming in at more than $700 per month. Adaptive reuse of existing structures combined with modern additions or additional infill will create housing stock that is more diversified in accordance with the comp plan's directives. It should be noted that Blackburn Avenue and the surrounded neighborhood already includes a mixed, varied, and affordable housing stock. Up zoning will not provide additional affordable housing. The proposed rents for the apartments actually exceed the mortgage payments in many of the current homes in the immediate vicinity. Any need for additional housing is furthermore being met by the proposed official station development, which is only a block away and will furnish 200 new affordable apartments. Next slide. The requested rezoning will allow construction of a development that is out of scale width and destructive of the surrounding neighborhood. The fact that the proposed, next slide, please. Sorry. The fact that the proposed development is entirely out of scale for the neighborhood is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that even with the drastic R5 upzoning, the applicant's plan would not work without substantial variances on setbacks in parking. The requested R5 zone will permit the construction of this massive structure on a narrow local road that is predominated by small single-family residential structures. The proposed structure is 24,816 square feet, which is 10 times the size of the neighboring single-family home, which is only 2,300 square feet. Most houses on the block are one and a half story houses that are only approximately 1,500 square feet. Next slide, please. The apartments previously developed at 345 Blackburn are located on the corner of Blackburn Avenue and 4th Street and do not front this narrow local road. That development repurposed underutilized industrial land on the outermost fringe of the historic north side neighborhood. During the zone change process for the 345 Blackburn development, it was promised that the parcels now under consideration would provide a, quote, buffer between the high-intensity R5 used at the corner of Blackburn and 4th Street and the rest of the neighborhood. The proposed R5 zoning now encroaches mid-block and will allow the construction of a large-scale development that changes the streetscape drastically, requires the demolition of an historic home, thereby removing existing housing stock that is suitable for duplex conversion, and removes important buffering and community areas. It is not appropriate to bring high-density residential into the center of a low-density single-family residential block dominated by R2 zoning. This is drastic upzoning. It should be noted, and as you can see on this slide here, that half of the lot that the historic structure is currently located on will be sacrificed to a vacant 18-foot side yard, which has been described by the applicant and the planning staff as providing a sufficient buffer between the R2 and R5 zones on this small street. This 18-foot buffer is minuscule when compared to the more than 250 feet provided for between the two R5 zone developments on this block, which are both owned by the applicant and its associated entities. The fact that the applicant chose to orient the development in this manner increases the pressure that the requested R5 zone will place on the neighboring R2 properties by moving this high intensity use into the middle of the block. 18 feet is simply not a sufficient buffer for the intensity of the R5 zone use. The proposed development is destructive to the fabric of this historic neighborhood and entirely out of scale with the single family residential properties on this block. Next slide. The neighborhood will be negatively impacted by the requested upzoning. Next slide. In addition to the impacts on the neighborhood arising from the extreme intensity of use associated with the requested R5 zone, the increased number of dwelling units per acre and the size and massing of the proposed structure in comparison to the other properties on Blackburn Avenue, the residents of Blackburn Avenue will be directly impacted by the approval of the zone change because it will allow the construction of a high-intensity residential development without proper buffering and will negatively impact property values, create a nuisance due to increased traffic and parking along Blackburn Avenue, which is a small residential street, will create safety problems associated with increased traffic on Blackburn Avenue, will create light and noise pollution on the property at 323 Blackburn Avenue, will limit the amount of sunlight enjoyed by that property will remove an historic structure from the neighborhood. by permitting the demolition of the historic home in 325 Blackburn Avenue and will alter the streetscape on Blackburn, thereby creating an eyesore in the neighborhood. Next slide. This and the next slide show what traffic actually looks like on Blackburn right now. They show traffic jams on Blackburn Avenue due to the development at 345 Blackburn. Imagine what the street would look like with an additional 55 units per acre on this small street. This is a very narrow street that cannot handle the traffic influx associated with such an increase in density. Next slide, please. Currently, when traffic backs up on the block, cars are forced to turn around mid-block to escape the jam. Next slide, please. Next slide. This slide shows the green space that has previously served as a buffer. Next slide. This shows the destruction of the tree canopy that has already occurred on site. Next slide. The requested rezoning is not supported by the Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan. Next slide. The following themes and goals of the comp plan are not met by the requested zone change. Theme A, goal 2B, states that development should respect the context and design features of areas surrounding development projects and develop design standards and guidelines to ensure compatibility with the existing urban form. The proposed project disregards the existing urban form. Theme A, Goal 3A, encourages existing and new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation, expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation, and public commitment to expand options for mixed-use and mixed-type housing throughout Lexington Fayette County. Although the proposed development would provide new residential dwelling units, it does not provide for mixed use or mixed type development, nor does the proposed development preserve the character of the neighborhood in which it would be located. Next slide. Theme C, goal two. The proposed rezoning would not contribute to the creation or growth of jobs in the downtown area or the creation of jobs where people live, as is recommended. Next slide. theme d goal three the proposed demolition and redevelopment does not promote and protect historic preservation of the community's resources which are part of the cultural landscape that gives lexington its unique identity and image theme d goal three encourages the protection of historic resources including the renovation and restoration of structures the existing residential structure on the subject site was constructed in 1910 and is a part of a National Registered District. Next slide. The proposed development is not consistent with governing regulations or the Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan. Even though the subject properties are currently zoned R2 and the City Council has yet to approve the requested zone change to R5, as you were told earlier by Ms. Wade, the Planning Commission on October 8th voted to approve the major development plan associated with the project, which approved the construction of a development that is not permitted in R2 zone but would be permitted in the R5 zone that is being requested today. I want to point out that it's not the planning commission's typical process to approve major development plans before an accompanying zone change has been finally approved by this council. Mark Clark who objected to the approval of the development plan as premature and inappropriate has appealed the approval to the Fayette Circuit court. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Ms. Winter, we had agreed that we would not include that as part of this hearing. It's not relevant to the zone change request. Yes, sir. And I agree. I just wanted to note that an appeal had been taken and I'm moving on. I wasn't going to talk about it at all. Thank you. Thank you. Next slide, please. Okay. One second here. Okay, there we go. And last, I want to go over the fact that the applicant here did not engage in a meaningful dialogue with stakeholders. In addition to the many and varied substantive problems associated with the applicant's zone change request, request, there are procedural deficiencies that should be taken into account by the council in deciding on its proposal. In this case, the applicant failed to engage in any meaningful dialogue with the stakeholders. Next slide. The first step in the collaborative process envisioned by the comp plan and set forth in Place Builder is engagement. Place Builder states that Imagine Lexington strongly encourages meaningful engagement between applicants and stakeholders for design and envisioning of a development before the process begins. The applicant here failed to engage in any meaningful dialogue with the residents. The applicant held two meetings at which the applicant voiced concerns regarding the massing and scale of the proposed development and suggested changes to the type and design of the proposed development. Unfortunately, these neighbors felt that the applicant's meetings were nothing more than efforts to, quote, check the box with regard to community engagement. None of the neighborhood concerns or suggestions have been incorporated into the applicant's development plan and can follow up communications with the neighborhood over the past several months have been non-existent. The meaningful discussion and efforts at compromise contemplated by the comprehensive plan have not occurred in this case. This is a fact that should be considered by the city council in making its recommendation regarding whether this drastic zone change and out-of-scale development should be approved. Next slide. There are some procedural irregularities that have happened in connection with this zone change process that I'm obligated to point out to you. The net effect is that the voices of objectors have been ignored or minimized, and objectors' due process rights have been violated. It's due to COVID and the Zoom format of meetings, which everyone has been scrambling and trying to figure out. But the format has not allowed objectors to be seen in addition to being heard. and Mr. Clark was somewhat constrained in his presentation in front of the planning commission and Ms. Winters I'm afraid again I have to intervene that's not an issue before this this body okay I'll move on we know that in connection with this hearing you are doing your best. Ms. Winters, I'm sorry you have run out of time. I know, but I believe that my time ran out because of some difficulties with technology, and I have just two or three minutes left, so I think I was, I recorded myself earlier. Ms. Winters, Ms. Winters is fine. I agree. Your time got taken. If you could wrap up, that'd be great. Sure, thank you. Despite the challenges and setbacks associated with mounting an objection to a destructive zone change in a neighborhood during the times of COVID, a substantial number of concerned residents have organized to speak out against this zone change. It's my hope that their voices will be heard and considered tonight. Please remember that the applicant here purchased these properties with R2 zoning. The applicant has no entitlement to the requested upzoning, and the council has a duty to deny the requests such as these when they conflict with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The neighbors do not haphazardly oppose zone changes, and they acknowledge that a viable neighborhood evolves. Recognizing the neighborhood is second-tier urban, the neighbors actually promote themes and goals of the Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan, providing that they encourage infill and development that respects the historical character of the neighborhood and preserves it as a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use neighborhood. The neighbors readily embrace a diversity of residents, including students. Infill is important. The neighbors are not opposed to infill. but infill and growth cannot and should not be achieved at the expense of the destruction of our historic and established neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that make Lexington extra special. Instead, infill should be in accordance with the principles of Imagine Lexington, which was intended to balance the competing concerns of development and preservation. It should be in line with various small area studies that our city has invested substantial time and money in developing and which focus on the needs of specific areas of our community. And when a proposed development is entirely out of context with a neighborhood in terms of size and scale, it should be rejected in favor of a compatible development that still accomplishes the goal of infill and development and increased density. Based on the foregoing, we ask the City Council to deny the proposed zone change, as it is not representative of the intent of Imagine Lexington, and we challenge the City Council to encourage smart info of the urban neighborhoods of Lexington, including adaptive reuse of historic structures. I would like to ask that the PowerPoint, the position statement, these comments, the petition signed by more than 104 residents in opposition, and the letters from dozens of residents that have previously been submitted to planning be entered into the record of this proceeding. I have also submitted proposed findings of fact in support of denial to you, which I hope you should be able to find in your materials. If not, I would request that they be shared with you so that you have them handy if it's needed. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're just at two hours. I'm going to call a 10-minute question. Councilman Maloney, we're going to have a... I know. I've been in and out of this thing. I didn't get to see her presentation because my internet went completely out. I called law department, asked them what I can do. They said I could read this on Google, but I don't have two laptops. I have one laptop. I can, in my opinion, I didn't get to listen to any of her stuff until the last two minutes. And being a councilman for a long time, I've always said to both sides, and I've always was told, it's like a court, you have to hear everything to hear both sides. Is it legal for me to continue on since I could not get on her statement? I did not hear anything on her, except when she came in, she had five minutes left. when I came back on. Okay. Councilman Maloney, I will talk to Law when we take this break, but I believe you're correct. If you missed part of this, if you cannot view it before it's over, I'm going to have to not, yeah, you cannot participate, but I'll check with Law. Thank you. Okay. It's by my clock at 7.04. We'll take a 10-minute break. Can we get back sharply at 714. Thank you. Tracy Jones. I believe she's here, Vice Mayor. Thank you. You may proceed, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Welcome back to everybody. At this point, we will hear from the people who have signed up to speak. And as our website says, we're going to take them in the order in which they signed up. And each person will have 30 minutes. We will ask you to give your name and address for the record. And then you'll take your three minutes. And starting with John Serigliano. Welcome. John, you need to unmute. You're still not audible. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, and thank you for this hearing. My name is John Cerliano. I have a mailing address at 210 East High Street in Lexington. I visited the property and walked down Blackburn Street today, accompanied by a new Kentucky resident moving here from Oregon. I found the street to look very good. The property across from 345 Blackburn, which is zoned light industrial, has had substantial improvement to it. It looks like a showroom has been put in there. so things are happening in the neighborhood but in terms of my very long experience in this neighborhood and ownership of substantial property in the neighborhood we continue to need to have a portfolio of housing solution alternatives and we need to have the three d's density, diversity, and demographics. And in my experience in this neighborhood and my experience in Lexington and elsewhere, this project fits all of those criteria of increasing density, improving demographics, and improving diversity in the neighborhood. So I would recommend and hope that you would approve this zoning change. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next will be Martin Navarro. Vice Mayor they have not logged into the meeting. Okay then next would be Jennifer Littrell has some doubts. And as I mentioned she will need her oath. hi can you hear me yes you just hold on a second and let me get to the right page i have to swear you in okay if you would raise your right hand please thank you do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge i do thank you you And if you'll give us your name and address, you have three minutes. My name is Jennifer Littrell-Hesselbentz, a.k.a. Jenny, and I live at 617 Ellesmere Park, Lexington, Kentucky, 40508. I'm both a member of the Northside neighborhood, and I'm also a teacher at Providence Montessori School in Lexington. We have a middle school is right across the street from Blackburn Avenue. And we would like to say that we are concerned with too much traffic as far as a 24 unit building would produce. and that we are hoping that we will not have an R5 zone change. We're in favor of an R2 zone change. And I'm concerned that the rest of the 4th Street corridor would be soon R5 and make it a very unfavorable neighborhood. Blackburn Avenue is very quiet. it. Well, it was, and now we're hoping that we can continue to have multi-use neighborhood and multi-house neighborhood, but we don't want the houses to be torn down. We would be okay with an R2 structure, but not an R5. Thanks. That's all I got. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Next would be Tony Rokanova. Mr. Rokanova, we do have your PowerPoint slide when you're ready. And you need to unmute. Okay. Now you're good. Could you give us your name and address? I need to get, yeah. My name. Mr. Roccanova, do you have another device listening to this meeting as well in your room? there is another device here yeah could you turn the sound down on that one please because that's where the echo is coming from is there still an echo that that you need to turn it i think you're okay now can you hear me okay now yes yeah okay all right can i get started your name and address sir and then okay my name is tony roccanova i live at 466 west 6th street in lexington Hello, council members and colleagues. Tonight I'll be showing... Hang on just a minute. This is... How do I get rid of this thing here? Sorry. We have your PowerPoint whenever you're ready, Mr. Akinola. What do you need to do? This is covering my phone. I'll use this. I'll use this. All right. Hello, council members and colleagues. Tonight I'll be showing image slides that demonstrate building design alternatives to the current building proposal submitted by the developer for Blackburn Avenue site. We fervently reject the proposed change to R5 from R2 for the Blackburn site and especially the any appropriate building proposal that's attached to that zoning proposal or the rezoning proposal. Architecture, urban design, and context matter in this neighborhood project. So let's begin. First slide. Yeah, that one. Okay, so you've seen already some of this before today. Context is at the top of the list. Blackburn Avenue is between 4th Street and 3rd Street with 4th Street being light industry and mixed use. Next slide. Turning onto Blackburn, there's little positive context to offer. In fact, it's... I'm sorry. Just one moment. We're trying to get the slides. Are they operable now, Chris? Yes, sir. They're ready. Okay. We're on slide three. Yeah. Okay, let's go to the next one. Next slide. On the opposite end is Third Street, abundant with a variety of well-constructed houses, unified by the street and remembering its history. Next. Slide four. I'm on slide four. Stay by, we have more technical difficulties here. Let me try here. Okay, let's just try this. We on slide four? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Third Street, remembering the abundant with variety of well-constructed houses, unified by the street, remembering its history and a human scale that is eminently refined. Next slide. That should be number seven. Okay, we got seven. Okay, seven and eight. We've seen these before. These are Jessica's slides that show building examples of the site, the scale and character, clearly a context with much to offer, useful and positive. Next. Now, now views of the proposed developer building totally absent of variety scale and character next number 11. And if we put the plan of that proposal on the city plan, it drags the influence of fourth street into the center of black blackburn rather than the preferred influence of the significant residential of third street. slide 11. This is what we're doing right now. Okay, on to the next slide, 12. One more. Well, we're looking at the, Yeah. Okay. So next slide. Let's go to slide 12. We got that? Yeah. Okay. A better proposal can look like this. A residential bar perpendicular to Blackburn with a facade on Blackburn and a large buffer area. The next slides will give some ideas for how that could look. And I was happy to see this remarks about mid-density. Any of these ideas can be applicable to mid-density. Mr. Rockin, you're out of time. Your time's expired. We had technical difficulty, Mr. Rockin. I hope you take a couple, a minute to finish up. Okay, so these next slides could be amenable to middle density. Let's run through the next slide, 13. Plantings to soften the facade. Number 16, another possibility for sitting back with an idea for a small commercial at the ground level, such as a cafe, a bakery, an antique shop, or a small office. At the opposite side of South facade, number 17, the North facade can be simpler, acknowledging the flat's housing. Number 18, similar. Number 19, wood could be a substantial exterior material, recognizing the imperative to be ecologically minded in current construction. Number 20, another view that considers color as a design tool. The colors could be what are seen on the third street, the houses. And the next concluding slides are of a Lexington project, number 22. This is a bar proposal, too, perpendicular to Main Street. We're looking at the Main Street facade. This is how a similar proposal, number 23, could be organized in the site plan with the shorter bar along the existing housing side, number 24 or moving the bar for a street facade at the scale of a house. Number 25 shows a cross section that can give you an idea of parking along the adjacent to the existing parking of the flats. The last slide is a roof view that shows that you could have something like that also in this project. Just the last paragraph. We are not opposed to infill housing nor to an increase in density. In the largest sense, this is a critical project as it will have major repercussions for future projects in the north side. we urge council to vote no now to the zoning chain so that the process for a proposed building design can start anew but this time including participation by the residents of this neighborhood as one would expect in a democratic society thank you thank you next will be faith hatters I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you put your video on? I don't know if it's going to work, but I'll try. Here I go. I don't think it's doing it. Shall I just read my statement? I believe that will do. Would you give us your name and address? I sent you a request to turn on your video. If you just click yes, you should be okay. It's on now. Oh, it is? Yeah, it's not quite oriented to your face, but we can see the topic. Is this better? That's better. So if you'd give us your name and address, and you'll have three minutes. Okay. My name is Faith Harters. I live at 539 West 3rd Street. This place is me on the corner of West 3rd and Blackburn. I would like to relay two incidents that happened to me personally while living downtown, which bear on the hearing. The first incident relates to my service on the 4th Street Corridor Planning Committee. After much discussion by residents, neighborhood associations, and major property holders about density, the man from planning who was leading the project asked to hear from the businesses. To my surprise, one of the bar owners spoke up and said, downtown residents are not his clientele. His clientele come from the suburbs because they want to experience the neighborhoods. They want something different. He said if downtown loses its neighborhoods, then there will be no difference between his bar and the bar at Cheddar's on Tate's Creek. To stay in business, he needs the neighborhoods. A second bar owner spoke up and agreed. As this incident illustrates, the neighborhoods are an economic driver, and this project negatively impacts downtown business by negatively impacting a single-family neighborhood. The second incident relates to the perception of the downtown. I purchased my home in 1984. That year, or the one following, on the Saturday before Christmas, I pulled into a parking lot and found a wallet laying on the ground. from the license in the wallet I found the woman in the phone book and called her oh thank you thank you I am so grateful I will be right over together where do you live 539 West 3rd Street dead silence I knew exactly what was wrong she was afraid to come downtown at night would you mind holding on to my wallet and I will pick it up tomorrow after church I said that was find. This was the mid-1980s. She was afraid for her physical safety to come downtown, just like Cowgill and all the other developers were too afraid for their financial safety to come downtown. But some of us took the leap, purchased these older homes, fixed them up, and improved the neighborhoods. A few businesses like Stella's Deli and the Green Lantern also jumped in. Now that we are here, the downtown we created is in demand. We welcome further development of downtown, but it cannot be at the expense of the current owners. The apartment complex will devalue the surrounding properties. Any infill development must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and must respect our property values. The developers are in this to make a profit, but they cannot be allowed to do so by taking money from our pockets and putting it into theirs. Thank you. Thank you. Next will be Audra Megan. She has not signed in, Vice Mayor, and the next person on the list will need to be sworn. Okay, and next will be Robert. Is it Summer? Hi, it's a... Robert Summey. And I did swear in initially, but of course I will do it again if you want me to. Maybe you were not visible, if you don't mind, just to be sure. Do you swear, if you would thank you, do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thanks for letting me speak here. I just recently moved to this area. I'm a physician. I work with the University of Kentucky Lexington Clinic in a partnership, and I bought the house at 547 West 3rd Street. So this development will be two blocks from my backyard, so it will affect my view from my patio and my upstairs bedroom. So this neighborhood, I was interested in this neighborhood. It's just a beautiful neighborhood. If any of you guys walk through it, it's just really unique. You know, if you look at older neighborhoods, there's a character to it that you just can't find in newer neighborhoods. And I think there's a growing trend. I think there's a demand. In fact, the previous speakers have all mentioned that there's a demand for housing in this area. So I bought this old house and I'm renovating it with some architects. And I can't wait to see what it looks like. I'm sure it'll be beautiful. So I'm really excited about it. But I am not excited about this apartment building. I don't I'm not I might have not bought this property if I knew this apartment building was going to be in my backyard. The apartment building is, you know, it just really has no character. I mean, there's nothing there's nothing that makes you want to walk by that apartment building and look at it. There's nothing of interest. It just really detracts from the neighborhood. So I just, I think Lexington, you know, we have this unique development in the downtown or the areas close to downtown. And you're not going to be replacing those, the old stock of housing. You just can't create it nowadays. And so I think you really want to do what you can to preserve that character and to preserve that character you're just going to have to do more careful infill this is kind of a sloppy quick infill project maybe it was being planned for a long time i don't know but it's it's not right for the neighborhood so thanks for allowing me to come on and speak my mind and i look forward to you guys saying no to the zoning change thank you Thank you. The next person will be Casey Mather. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Give us your name and address. You have three minutes. I can't be seen just yet, though, can I? Yes, you are. You're visible to us. Okay, good. Great. My name is Casey Mather, and I own the house at 517 West 3rd Street. I won't have to reiterate how important it is that we have development at the right scale. I would like to say, though, that for the most part, the people that live in these downtown neighborhoods have taken on the responsibility to preserve, protect, and thoughtfully adapt the architectural heritage that define the unique neighborhood experiences therein. The historic neighborhoods surrounding downtown are a valuable and unique asset that once torn down or diluted with characterless and out-of-scale buildings can never be recovered. One can think of each of the downtown neighborhoods as a complete entity unto itself that is experienced as a whole. Each building contributes to a piece of that whole. The integrity and overall experience of that whole is compromised when new buildings ignore that context, which this building does. For example, the siting of the proposed building, while partially aligned with the existing facades that cradle the street, which is good, doesn't take advantage of that intimate relationship with the street to create a gracious or inviting entrance. The lack of a porch and or balcony means the building will be more inwardly focused than socially focused. The porches of the surrounding homes foster a sense of community by encouraging folks to say hello to friends and neighbors. The proposal is stark, flat, and 36-tall facade imposes itself on the experience of the street and interrupts the natural rhythm of the repeating spacing of the single-family homes in the rest of the neighborhood. The city government must not enable developers to chip away at the borders of our historic downtown neighborhoods and insist the design of any new buildings must conform to the established context. It is the city government's responsibility to hold developers accountable for the enforcement of the lofty goal set out by the comprehensive plan. The goal isn't to discourage all development, rather to encourage the right kind of development that will enrich the neighborhoods and continue a tradition of building long-lasting heirloom buildings that can be enjoyed for generations. Finally, we have to ask ourselves, is this the type of architecture we really want to be repeated across our many empty lots and along the fringes of our neighborhoods? With every raised historic building, with every large scale development that would be better suited for Hamburg than the north side, downtown Lexington moves closer to becoming an unremarkable place that while trying to increase the housing stock, forgot to follow the example of its forebearers and create a cherishable place that will enrich people's lives for generations. I strongly encourage the council to reject this rezoning request so that developers can go back to the drawing board with input from the neighborhood and produce a building that will meet the criteria set out by the comprehensive plan and set a positive example for how downtown Lexington can be responsibly developed. Thank you. Thank you. Next would be Eric Schake. Am I on now? Yes, you are. You have three minutes. You give us your name and address, please. I am Eric Chockey. I own the house at 505 West 3rd Street. And I really appreciate the information given by the developers and the opposition. and generally I wish that the existing historic house could be preserved and I wish that or would be preserved and I wish that the tree canopy could also be preserved as well but my largest concern for this neighborhood is gentrification and there are a lot of ways to try to attack or battle with gentrification and the displacement of existing residents and neighborhoods. And none of those work without increasing the existing supply. And some things that stuck out to me particularly are the large amount of rental parcels that exist within a 500-foot radius of the site, 39 parcels, most of the parcel or the plurality of the parcels, but also that 71 out of 72 of the other development by the developer, 71 of the 72 units are rented and mostly to university students. It occurs to me that if we want to protect our neighborhood as it is, which is a very diversely inhabited neighborhood with working class people, with middle class people, and with very rich people, not within maybe 500 feet, but within a thousand feet, they're a million dollar homes. The pressure is mounting for flipping houses on a lot of these working class housing, houses on Jefferson Street. And even on Third Street, it's been mischaracterized, I think, twice now as a single family neighborhood and it is not, my two neighbors, the neighboring housing units next to me are six dwelling units in two houses. So it is not single family. But if we want to try to preserve that, then allowing for the demand of student housing to be occupied somewhere is a major issue. And I think this is a reasonable place to do it. Like I said, I wish that the existing house could be preserved, but it is, you know, I think that another part of that and why I'm letting that go is that it is very difficult to get large scale developments passed. And the more difficult we make it by denying more things, the slower this infill process and what seems to be that's going to happen. So I am for the development. Thank you. Thank you. The next person will be Daniel Durick. Vice Mayor, Mr. Durick will need to be sworn in. Thank you. Hello, I'm ready. Can you put your video on? Yes. Thank you. I need to sway you in. If you would raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing would be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thank you. Give us your name and address. And you've got three minutes. Thank you. My name is Daniel Durek. I live at 332 Blackburn Avenue, right across the street from the proposed rezoning. We bought the house, we bought the property in 2015. So we've seen a lot of development. When we purchased the house, we did not have any children. However, since then, we have one daughter who is coming up on five years old. when we bought the house Blackburn Avenue was a very quiet street very little traffic coming through and we thought it was a great starter home however we've seen a lot of change and the big big concern for me as some other citizens have expressed is the amount of traffic that comes through and the speed that they're coming through here at so a big thing that I've been pushing for and and been in communication with uh council member uh josh mccurin about was um trying to get some kind of uh speed tables or um some kind of speed bump of some sort and when we talked with uh the developers with cowgill they uh they told us that they would work with us and um and uh we just want to make sure that um that we we really push for that that's going to be my thing that I really want to voice my concern for is just how fast a lot of people pull out of the current high rise on the corner of fourth and Blackburn. And it would be hard to imagine just another four story going in. So we highly suggest that we reject the rezoning to R5 and we would be happy to work with the developers and with our council members in trying to do R2 or any other kind of development. And that's all I have for this evening. Thank you all for hosting this and thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Thank you. The next person would be Walt Gaffield. uh vice mayor members of the council i'm walt gaffield i live at 2001 bamboo drive i'm representing the fayette county neighborhood council you know lexington clearly needs more density but it has to do it correctly and and i don't think in this case uh this development really meets uh reasonable standards i've been looking at uh infill consultants who work with other cities. And in a lot of ways, this particular development, you know, just doesn't meet normal standards. First consultant I looked at was a company called Herbs Work in Portland, Oregon. And they talk about what ensures that infill is compatible with existing neighborhoods. And their first point is that usually it's about transitions. That means more than 50 percent of the time. The real problem with infill is what goes next to a neighborhood. And what they say about it is avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential areas of different densities. A contextual development pattern is one of a gradient where land use intensities and building scales increase or decrease progressively. It is unusual and generally undesirable to place development of substantially different scales and intensities side by side. Now that's what missing middle housing is for. It's to provide that transition between these kind of huge structures in a neighborhood. Second point they make is that it's about scale. It said maintain the scale and character of the existing neighborhood. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. In this case, they missed the mark. Notice they don't just say the buildings have to be the same height. They talk about scales and intensities of development. It's not just the height. Second firm I looked at was Municipal Research and Services Center. They're a company in the state of Washington. They're a nonprofit that provides advice to cities on infill. And they basically say that ideally, infill development involves more than the piecemeal development of individual lots. Instead, a successful infill development program should focus on the job of crafting complete, well-functioning neighborhoods. Attention to design of infill development is essential to ensure that the new development fits the existing context and gains neighborhood acceptance. The design obviously doesn't fit. There's not a lot of neighborhood support, just institutional support. And this is spot zoning. I mean, when they did the whole neighborhood, that was the, I believe the 2014 plan. And that was more what this consultant is talking about. And instead, what we're getting out of the comprehensive plan is a lot of spot zoning. And that's just not right. Third and final company I looked at was Winter and Company. They're an infill consultant from Boulder, Colorado with work in Los Angeles, Houston, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. And they work, they do extensive work. Yeah, Field, I'm sorry. Your time has expired. Okay, well, I'm sorry. I don't have a lot more to add, but I'd be glad to stop. But I think I've made my point. Thank you very much. Thank you. And next will be Amy Clark. Is Ms. Clark present? Yes, I was bringing her in. I'm not sure what happened to her. I see her now. Okay. You need to unmute. And then if you'd give us your name and address, you have three minutes. There you go. Thank you. I'm Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road in Lexington. I actually signed up to yield my time to someone in the neighborhood, but I realize I cannot. So instead, I asked them, what do you want me to talk about? And we thought that the important theme really was affordability and displacement. And I was struck right away when Mr. Boffman pointed out that there are 33 owner-occupied units left in the neighborhood. So I want to begin by saying, like you, I followed every single meeting of the gentrification committee, the mayor's subcommittee. And I was very struck by Angela Greenhampton. She said she's the president of Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association. She said the association was very concerned with loss of home ownership. She described rather rapacious people acquiring houses and then renting them back. And she said these houses rent for $8,000 to $1,200 once the owner occupant is gone. And she described that rent as astronomical. She was talking about the rent of an entire house in the Georgetown Street area, the other side of Newtown Pike. But here on Blackburn Avenue, the existing apartments to which the proposed zone change and development is called complementary, the one bedroom apartments are posted with rents of $920 a month. so that sounds astronomical to georgetown street and that's just an apartment and in fact it's an apartment that doesn't meet the minimum size standard that mr cerigliano in the thistle development with affordable housing will have to furnish it would be hard to put a family in it a single parent in it. They're just quite tiny. So affordability is a big issue. But the other big issue, I was very struck by that gentrification committee meeting with several speakers. Each of them mentioned home ownership, because when you own your home, you're rooted in the neighborhood, they can't take it away from you. And the home ownership in this area by Mr. Boffman's reckoning is the units are 20% owner occupied. Why does this matter? Because the larger concern is displacement. How can we keep people in their homes, be they rental or home ownership? and work. This time has expired. Thank you. Thank you. Next would be Mark Klar. Hi. Welcome. Give us your name and address and you'll have three minutes. My name is Mark Klar. I live at 321 Blackburn Avenue. I'm the pink house in the presentation that you saw. I'm the one that's going to be up next to this development. Dear city council members, I have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years. The first 15 at 516 West 3rd Street, the last 15 here at 321 Blackburn, next to the development. My wife Barbara and I chose to live downtown before it became hip. We enjoyed the diversity, the mix of people, different ages, races, economic classes. It continues to be a good place to live. This proposal threatens that quality of life my neighbors and I enjoy. It is simply out of scale, too big, too massive for the heart of our streets or neighborhood. It elbows us out. You have seen that the developer, when proposing the current development at 345 Blackburn referred to the massing of that development towards 4th Street in order to provide a buffer to the rest of that street. Where is that buffer as proposed now? We in our neighborhood are not against the continued development of our area. We are not ignorant of the need for more intensive and dense housing and more affordable housing. But this proposal, this layout, this design is completely out of scale. It is inappropriate for a setting. We told this to the developer. I believe Tracy Wade was there at the very first presentation of the building by the developer and at every subsequent meeting with them. We offered a variety of suggestions that might allow the building to fit, making it smaller or realigning it so it didn't wall off the rest of the street. We spoke of variation across the front, so it wouldn't be so blank across the facade. Real porches. There was no real response by the other party. No effort on their part to compromise, to find middle ground, true middle ground. They are the one asking for a change in zoning. They knew the property was zoned R2 when 345 was built and the other lots bought. They are asking for a huge jump in zoning. They are not content with a change to R3 or R4. They insist on R5. I repeat, we are not against more intensive development. This is not an exercise of NIMBY. We recognize the need. We already have it on our street. We already have more intensive housing at 345 and are willing to accept more. But it needs to be the buffer that the developers themselves saw as necessary. I am told not to make this argument personal. but there's little in this life that is more personal than the neighborhood you choose to live in, where you eat, sleep, raise your children, garden. This is our neighborhood, my neighborhood, and we have a right, a duty to have a real say as to how it is transformed and how the city evolves. A new building could complement and complement our neighborhood without looking like it. It doesn't have to be exactly an historical restoration for it to fit in. This proposed structure does neither. It's just too damn big. It will diminish the value of our property and more importantly, the quality of our lives, something much more difficult to quantify. There are many technical reasons for rejecting this upzoning that have been presented. Mr. Clark, you're talking about it. I have five more, I have 10 more words to put it. But I believe it comes down to one question. Given all the variables, would you want this building built in your neighborhood, across the street, or next to you? If not, I feel you must reject this proposal. We look forward to working with the developers to create a street we can all enjoy and be proud of that extends the needs of the city. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. Next, Evelyn Knight. Ms. Knight, when you come in, we have your PowerPoint ready for you when you ask for it. Okay, thank you. Good evening, everyone. I'm sorry, Evelyn. Can you put your video on? Yep, got it. Thank you. Sorry, touchscreen issues. So good evening. I'm Evelyn Knight. I live at 516 West 3rd Street. I am an owner landlord of a three unit Victorian home. You can go ahead and start the slides please Mr. Edwards and go to the second slide. You could go ahead and make that full screen please. And we'll go to the second slide. Because we've covered on a number of issues that I have in this presentation, I'm going to skip over them really fast. Next slide, please. Because I have three basic issues. One is the tree canopy. Imagine Lexington seeks to protect it, both significant trees and tree stands. Next slide, please. And unfortunately, some of the approaches in tree plants presented by developers actually proposed taking down trees and planting little baby trees that are unlikely to survive and cannot provide canopy benefits. Next slide, please. But all of this is moot because all the trees on the property have been destroyed. They were destroyed in November by the developer. Next slide, please. So I want to move on to issues we've already covered actually I'll try to go quickly because we have covered them but these are the things that stood out for me and looking at Imagine Lexington which was created by Lexington for Lexington that's really important next slide please so these are some of the proposals that are relevant to the proposal by the for upzoning I'm going to go real quickly what these say they propose that development should be sensitive to context that's 360 degrees of context that development or redevelopment must honor and enhance Lexington's unique cultural, physical, and natural resources, all of them. It recognizes that as Imagine Lex does, that we will need to develop interesting and affordable housing, perhaps a missing middle or compact single-family housing, combined with amenities and entertainment, to attract young professionals who will make Lexington their home, not warehouse them for a period of time, but that's my comment. It doesn't say that in the plan. It avows that the streetscape should be inviting, and while recognizing the need for increasing density within the urban service area, Imagine Lexington proposes that density should enhance neighborhoods, not detract from them, especially along the boundaries of existing historic districts, which is what we are. And to achieve the desire for increased density, Imagine Lexington proposes that high-rise development should be sited on higher capacity roadways such as minor arterial roads and connectors. So next slide please. So what we see is a plan presented here for R5 high density zoning which really defies all of that. It sets a troubling precedent for neighborhoods on the edge of the zoning district allowing inappropriate development to nibble away at the local context and when that local context is gone there will be no turning back, and we will be left with a mundane urban environment inspiring really to no one. I strongly oppose the proposal before you and invite you to consider our community's own vision in Imagine Lexington for its future as you make your decision. I also want to comment very briefly on the three Ds, density, demographics, and diversity. The density does not need to be in this neighborhood. We need density and we are not opposed to density, but not high rise density, not here. The demographics are targeted for one small group. And so the diversity is also lacking. Your time has expired. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And next would be Richard Levine. Vice mayor, he was unable to join us, but his comments were submitted and put into the record. Thank you. Okay I believe that's everyone who was signed up unless someone was added. They couldn't have been added. They had to be signed up in advance. So I think that completes the public comment. Now staff if you have additional comments they would be appropriate now. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, did you say staff comment? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Just a few comments about the presentations that were made this evening. I think I'll start at the bottom and go up. There were several references about spot zoning, and I just want to clarify that generally that that term is meant to indicate some sort of arbitrary zoning or zoning of a small tract of land that is inconsistent with the surrounding area and or not compatible with the surrounding area. So in this case, there is already existing R5 adjacent to this area. And so the staff doesn't believe it really meets the definition of spot zoning. In fact, it really is not spot zoning. There's existing multifamily right there, same land use, same zone. Second, there was some conversation or mention of avoiding abrupt changes in scale and avoiding piecemeal development. And certainly those are ideal in our infill redevelopment ideas for Fayette County. And in this case, the staff recommendation and ultimately the Planning Commission recommendation found that the scale was actually fairly consistent along or that there was a good transition along Blackburn, where the corner of 4th Street and Blackburn is four stories. This transition steps down to three stories. And then Mr. Clark's property and further down the street, again, steps down to two and a half and two stories in height. And it matches the setback or very close. Again, the property at 4th Street is a little bit closer to Blackburn. This one steps back four or five feet. And then Mr. Clark's property is in line with this proposed structure. So again, the staff and the planning commission found that what was being proposed was compatible in terms of scale and massing with the existing area. Obviously, the architecture is different, but that is not within the realm of the planning commission to consider. There was also mentioned this afternoon or this evening of displacement of residents. And in this case, we have, I just want to remind you, we have two vacant lots. So no one is being displaced with that development of those two lots. And the third lot has a vacant home on it. Yes, it is a single family home, but the owner moved to a different state and left it in a state of disrepair. So that property is also vacant. Again, we're not displacing anyone that lives on these three lots. And lastly, well, two more things. I want to just reassure the council that the planning commission and the planning staff takes very seriously the idea and the concept and the right to due process. And we have done our absolute best to ensure that the public is welcomed to the Planning Commission meetings, is able to view everything, is shared information, and everyone that signs up to speak is allowed time to speak at the Planning Commission hearings. and they can still submit written comments, provide documents for the commission to review, and they're able to review those via our Google Drive. So I want to assure the council that we've done our best to provide for due process for everyone to be heard at the planning commission hearings. And our hope is today that the citizens feel, again, heard by the council members on tonight. Then lastly, there was some mention about the density numbers from the comprehensive plan. And unfortunately, the reference numbers are outdated. Our 2007 comprehensive plan, which is now 14 years past, did reference density numbers. A particular 10 dwelling units per acre equals this density. But the current comprehensive plan, which you are evaluating this project under, does not have those quantities, those numeric values in terms of evaluating what is medium density. Medium density in this comprehensive plan does not have a particular dwelling unit per acre quantity. It is generally thought of as between two and four stories tall and residential. It is not this development is not a high rise development. I would encourage you to think of the Park Plaza apartment just adjacent to the building we're standing in in Phoenix downtown adjacent to the library that is high-rise development and that is downtown. The place that we're talking about for this site is in the second tier urban area and they're proposing a medium density residential development. That's it for my comments. Thank you. Okay thank you very much. Next we'll offer the petitioner an opportunity for rebuttal evidence if you have any. Mr. Glendonin. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. First, I want to echo the comments made by Ms. Wade. We wholeheartedly endorse that and we agree with everything that she said. But in addition to that, I want to point out or try to clean up what I think are some misconceptions or some statements that were made during some of the presentations. The characterization of the flats and this development as student housing is just not accurate. The current makeup of the housing at the flats that's occupied is only about 50% students. The other 50% is either young professionals or older people, older people than what you consider to be a young professional. This is not designed to be student housing. Of course, would they welcome students? Yes. If they qualify for the thing and they want to live there, of course, but it's not designed strictly as student housing. That's just not an accurate description of the property, and that's not the intent of the developer. There was a statement about the tree canopy more than once. We had our tree canopy proposal reviewed by the urban forester, Mr. Query. It actually, we are increasing that. Mr. Warner can speak to that if council members have questioned, but at the time we submitted our plan, it was looked over by the urban forester. It was approved and actually increases the tree canopy, as we've stated, rather than reduces it. There was a video clip featuring Mr. Walborn from 2016, from a 2016 era. And basically what I heard was that if there was going to be any kind of change to the adjacent lots, you know, that would have to be taken up at a zone change and they would have to go through that process. Well, it's four or five years later. That's exactly what we're doing now. Now, factually, when he spoke about this and said this is going to provide a buffer, there was no guarantee or pledge from the developer that this would maintain a landscape buffer in perpetuity. At least I didn't hear that. And, you know, we are asking for the council to approve the zone change. We're going through the process. That's what was said by Mr. Walborn at that time. So I want to make sure that the council is not coming away with some impression that the developer a few years ago was playing fast and loose with the troop and promising something. Because that's kind of what I'm hearing that you're supposed to infer by that clip. And I just want to make sure that that's not what's portrayed or heard by the council in this case. We agree with what Ms. Wade said with regard to the definitions. Frankly, and I'm not trying to be rude here, but I heard a little cherry picking about the definitions of medium density from 2002 and 2007. Those are not relevant now. In 2018, there was a new comprehensive plan enacted. That's what we're going by now. That's what we're here to decide. does this zone change in agreement with that comprehensive plan, not the comprehensive plan from 2002 or 2007. And if Mr. Edwards would be helpful here to me, if you would pick up and go through, if you could quickly, there is a, there was a slide in the staff's presentation called place builder information. If you can find that for me, I'll move on. Yeah, because we don't have those pulled up, so it'll take us a bit, but we'll keep talking. We will find. Okay. All right. Mr. Clendenin, is this part of rebuttal or is this new? This is part of rebuttal. Okay. This was already introduced. This is part of rebuttal. Gotcha. So you can continue while he's trying to get it up. Yes, sir. The statement that was made about there wouldn't have been a zone change approved for 345 if they knew that we would come back later seeking a zone change for those undeveloped lots. There's nothing in the record. I don't see any evidence supporting that. And that's purely speculative. If there's some evidence in the record to support that, I'd like to see it, but that's just a flat out unsubstantiated claim. And I want to make sure the council understands that. Mr. Edwards, do you have that slide? Okay. Okay, this is the current comp plan using the place builder information. If you could go back to the one that you were at. The first one you put up is the one I'm looking for, sir. It says place builder information on the left border. Chris, you have the right slide. If you want more information to come up and have it highlighted, you just tap it and it's an empty. Oh, there it is. There it is right now. Okay. All right. As you see, that's highlighted in the border red. That was the... Okay, right there. Medium density residential. And if you look where it says recommended zones, R5, that's what we're doing here. That's what we're asking for. this is the current definition of medium density residential in accordance with the existing comp plan so that's all i wanted to point out um that's rebuttal that all the rebuttal that i have mr boffman would be allowed to speak if he wants to i'd appreciate it but mr vice mayor that will be fine mr boffman if you have something if you could be brief yeah they um i'll be brief with this the only other thing i would like to mention is that with that parking on the street a lot of that parking no longer occurs today we've ran run the flat 345 for about three years now i guess and we haven't had issues with parking so much so the powerhouse church parks in our parking lot we've got 13 parking spots along the the front of the flat 345 for proposing adding a few more to that number. And I'd also like to point out that the rest of that street is now permit parking. So general members of the public without a permit can't park there. Okay, thank you. If you have no further, then we'll give the opponent an opportunity for rebuttal, Ms. Winters. Thank you. I don't have much for rebuttal, but I would like to address a couple of the issues relating to density. And in our presentation, we noted that the R2 area immediately adjacent to the project has a density of around 10 units per acre, and that the proposed development has an increased density to 55 units per acre. and it's the position of the neighbors that regardless of whether the quantities of units relative to density from the 2007 comp plan actually apply in this scenario that they do provide context and in that context the density of this project of 55 units per acre qualifies as very high density and it is also undisputed that r5 zone is the highest density residential zoning provided for in our ordinance and this is being requested on a street a small local road that has been recommended for medium density residential development and that's where we're going at that point um i wanted to address the uh the clip that mr clinton just mentioned um we shared that clip from the prior zone change not to insinuate that the developer made a promise that he's not keeping now we know that things that are said in prior zone changes can't we can't hold those speakers to those issues now, but to point out that at that time, the residents were concerned about the requested zone change, which was going to an R5, and they were concerned that it would set a dangerous precedent for their neighborhood, and that the R5 zoning would bring an increased intensity and uses onto their residential street, and the way that those concerns were addressed and soothed at the time was to say, well, there will always be, there will be this buffer here, And this buffer will provide a transition from the high-intensity, high-density R5 use at the corner of Blackburn and 4th, which is a corridor, into the small local road that is Blackburn Avenue. And so it was important in the process then, and it's still important today. And allowing the R5 to encroach into this local road eliminates the transition area. And so that's all I have in rebuttal. But I'm assuming based on what I said earlier, we'll have a chance for closing. So thank you and I appreciate your time. Okay. If you would like to proceed to your closing, Ms. Winter. Okay. Pull it up here. Okay. I don't know how much time I have. I haven't timed myself on this, but I'll be brief, as brief as I can. I do appreciate your time and your service. And I know it's been a long hearing. And so I'll be quick. I want to end tonight with a few questions for you that I hope you will mull over in making your decision tonight. The first question is, what do we need in this second tier urban neighborhood? And I think we can all agree that we need increased density and infill. OK, then the question is, well, what do we have in this neighborhood? Well, we have our residents who are invested in their properties, the places where they live, the health and growth of their community, and responsible infill development. We have a grassroots organization that has formed to encourage responsible infill in the neighborhood, which opposes the requested rezoning. We have 104 residents of this neighborhood that are opposed to this development, and we have submitted a signed petition to this effect. We have a street that is dominated by single-family historic residential structures of much smaller size and scale than what has been proposed. We have an R2 zone that allows increased density that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. We have properties that, with the R2 zoning currently in place, provide a transition from an intense R5 use on the corner and the single-family residential properties on the rest of the block. And we also have, less than a block away, a 200-unit affordable apartment housing complex that has been recently been approved. Then we have to ask, what has been recommended for this neighborhood? And again, medium density residential development, which the current zoning at R2 allows, has been recommended for this neighborhood. Then we have to ask, what is being requested? And what is being requested is an R5 zone, which is the highest density residential zone permitted by our ordinance, and one which the ordinance specifically states should be located on corridors and downtown. It is undisputed that R5 is the highest density residential zoning provided for in our ordinance. Again, this is a small local road that cannot accommodate this intensity mid-block. R3 was not requested. Instead, it was a drastic up zone to R5. And why, this last question, why was the request for this drastic up zone necessary? And it was necessary to avoid setback, parking, side yard requirements, tree canopy requirements, and to cram more luxury student housing onto the small block. It was required to fit a structure that is 10 times larger than the other residential structures on Blackburn, and while the same height, dwarfs the neighboring properties in terms of scale. It was necessary to create a housing project that does not promote diversity, a development that is geared toward one population, one demographic, and one high-end economic group. What are we asking you to do? We're asking you to deny the requested zone change. I've submitted proposed findings of fact to you, which hopefully have been included in the materials that you've been provided, but we're asking you to disprove PLNMAR 29009 for the following reasons. that the requested zone change is a drastic up zone that will be destructive to the surrounding neighborhood. Two, that the requested zone change is out of line with the density for this area recommended by previous small area studies, including but not limited to the fourth straight zoning study. And three, that the following themes and goals of the comp plan are not met by the requested zone change. Theme A, goal 2B, which states that development should respect the context and design features of areas surrounding. theme a goal 3a which encourages existing and new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation and a public commitment to expand options for mixed use and mixed type housing and theme c goal 2 the proposed rezoning would not contribute to the creation or growth of jobs in downtown area or the creation of jobs where people live as is recommended. And theme D, goal three, the proposed demolition of the historic structure on the subject properties does not protect or promote the preservation of the community's historic resources. If you are inclined to approve the requested zone change, we are in agreement with the conditions imposed by the planning commission, except that we would add that we were request that the fence along the property line adjacent to the R2 structures be on the other side of the buffer zone and not directly adjacent to the neighboring property. This way the buffer zone will actually serve as a buffer to whatever extent an 18-foot section can provide as a buffer between R2 and R5. That's all I have. Thank you again for your time and your consideration. Thank you. Mr. Clendenin, closing summation anything to add could we lose could we lose mr clendenin vice mayor kahey is back in the attendees i'll put him back in the room thank you Mr. Glendon, time for closing summation if you would like. Sorry about that. For some reason, I just disappeared. I think to the miracles of technology, but I'm glad to be back. Thank you for the opportunity to close. I'll be brief. I want to address what the neighborhood actually is. We keep hearing references to the neighborhood. And the neighborhood is, as the opposition states, it is partly single-family homes or houses that are zoned R2. It's also B1, it's AU, it's R1E, R2, R4, and R5. That's the neighborhood. That's the 500-foot radius. It's all not just single-family homes that were built in 1910. And I think we need to have some context with regard to actually what we're saying is the neighborhood. Lastly, what I want to sum up is that, you know, again, our zone change is in agreement with the current comp plan. Our request is in agreement with the 4th Street Study. The zone change was approved by the Planning Commission and it's recommended by the staff. So we'd like your vote and we think that we've earned it and we'd appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. At this point, if council members have questions of staff, petitioner or opponents or anybody who spoke, if you would raise your blue hand, I will recognize you and we will start with councilman McCarran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would, I'd be interested in seeing a little bit more on the presentation for the landscaping of what was, is in consideration here. I know, Mr. Warner, I believe you're on to speak to that. Is that correct? Certainly, I'm here to answer any questions about the landscape. Okay. I think... Wait, Kevin, before you get started, we actually have the tree canopy map on our supplemental information presentation. If we want to, if Chris Edwards can please pull that up. I believe it is on slide 19 of that. Stand by, please. Vice Mayor, I know that this may take a few minutes of my time here. I do have a few questions, so I can always come back. but uh as we as he pulls that up if i can start with some of my questions here and just considerations for the the landscaping um it was just brought up a minute ago for miss winners if this is something to pass um would you all consider moving the fence inward of the buffer zone uh that 18 feet or inward of the the tree canopy i believe that's what miss winners was asking Let me address the tree question first since we have that graphic up. So the graphic shows the red trees that are to be removed and then the dark green trees are existing currently today and then the lighter brighter green trees are proposed as part of this current zone change request. So it's hard to read, but I've actually gone through and done an observation of all of the trees one by one for what species they represent. And all of the large trees or all of the new trees will be large species, meaning oaks, maples, trees that have been cultivated in a nursery in order to be good quality trees in terms of form and canopy in there as they grow to a mature state. The trees that you see in red that are in the clump form, several of which have been removed already, those were fence row trees. They were volunteer trees. They were planted by birds who dropped the seeds there. They consisted primarily of hackberry, wild cherry, and other species that are weak wooded and subject to damage during ice storms and insect infestations. So as far as the quality of the trees that were removed already, those were what the urban forester would refer to as weed trees. They were grown. They were not planted by humans. They were planted by birds. And so those trees were not of the quality. Kevin, some of the additional information for Blackburn is on the next slide if you want to zoom in on it. Actually, before we leave that slide, if I can ask you a question. On the left side, we have the, you said the dark green, the buffer that's already currently there. Is that intended on staying in place? Yes, the dark green that is along the property line between the adjacent property and the proposed development will remain. Okay. And then as you go to the next slide. Okay. In the back of this property that's being proposed, is there going to be a green space area? There is between the building and maybe go back to the slide before. If you go one slide after this, it's Blackburn. Okay. Two slides forward. Yep. Well, this doesn't show the green space with the full development of the building, but there is a community green space behind the building. So the parking is limited to the very rear up against the industrial property at the rear of the property. And then the green space is between the parking and the building as designed. Okay. That green space that is there connects with a pedestrian connection to the existing green space at 345 Flats. So all of it is intended for usage by the residents from either development to be able to go back and forth. Okay. Thank you for going over that. And then back to Ms. Winters, if you can give a clarification on what you were asking from before on the moving the fence onto the inside of the buffer. were you meeting just on the inside of the trees there right so the current plan uh basically the building goes all the way uh to within 18 feet of mark clarr's house which is the next residential property on the street okay so there's this 18 foot buffer or green space area and i i think i'm not really clear but i think that's the green space area we were talking that he was just discussing maybe but it in the development plan the fence is on the far side of the 18 foot buffer which would be along Mr. Clark's property line and would essentially like wall off the neighborhood from the green space in the buffer area and so we would request that the fence be placed on the other side of the green space so that the neighborhood as you're walking down Blackburn Avenue can enjoy that green space as a buffer instead of being walled off from it. Would you be more content with the tree line being right on the property line or close to the property line and the fence being on the adjacent side of of uh this proposed property instead would that work i think so okay i mean again we're opposed to the zone change but well no i'm just i'm just trying to um and i'm just throwing out hypotheticals before we we close this and forward um and if if this does move forward, is that something developer? I know that they've worked and helped offer concessions for other things. Ma'am? I'm sorry, Mr. McCurn, your time is expired. Thank you. Vice mayor, I'll come back. Thank you. Thank you. Next is council member Reynolds. Thank you, vice mayor. I just wanted to clarify something. I guess I'll start with staff. Under the medium density residential list of things that you're looking for, is green infrastructure that should be implemented in any new development? um is uh miss wade is that is there like a minimum amount of green space that's supposed to be um as a part or per square foot or something per um because it sounds like there's not very much green space in this proposed right now so there's open space which the zone requires 20 percent open space. And I guess, Mr. Edwards, if you could show our development plan on, I don't know what slide number it is, maybe 14? Stand by, please. Our presentation, I can point out where the open space is. The green infrastructure is slightly different. Green infrastructure means that you're using alternative methods for stormwater. So instead of the drain pipe coming out and running to the street and overflowing the street, it goes into maybe a green swale or rain garden, and that holds the water as opposed to it running into the storm sewer directly. So green infrastructure is meant to soften the stormwater runoff problems that we might have. So the open space. Here comes the site plan. So is there a minimum requirement of actual green space, grass type? Well, so, yep, that's the right slide. the ordinance requires 20% open space, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of their open spaces on the ground floor. The other opportunities they have for open space are balconies or rooftop improvements. And in some cases, like a pool or the entertainment area shown on their larger development plan is considered open space. It doesn't necessarily have to be grass or green. What does have to be grass is the landscape buffer. So the green area that is shaded on this slide I'm showing will be grass, trees, shrubs. The area that Mr. Bailey's pointing to with the white cursor arrow. Oh, now it says Tracy Wade with a red arrow. That's pretty cool. That is the open space that Mr. Warner was just speaking of. If you zoom in on the text there, it's probably hard to read, but it says permeable pavers to be used at outdoor entertainment, focal point directly accessible from apartments. But that is an open grass area from what we read the plan to mean for use by the residents of both apartment buildings. Okay. And then also in this under medium density residential, it says that historically significant structures should be preserved. So would those houses would be considered historically significant structures, correct? I would say the house is historic because it's over 100 years old. And it is within a National Register District. But the National Register District didn't identify that structure as significant or contributing to the historic district. So, yes, it's historic, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's significant. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. That's all for now. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member McCurn actually clarified a lot of the questions I had in regards to the buffer. And then I had a question for the petitioner about public input, public engagement opportunities. I know COVID has been a challenge. but what was the strategy or what opportunities were presented for the neighborhood to have any input or feedback or engagement? We met with them before COVID. We had our first meeting and then kind of during it, we met once virtually. I think it was at the end of April around, it was in April sometime last year. And then once again, prior to going to planning commission, we met with them on site in one of the two vacant lots. I also had several email communications with them. Some of those communications ended up with us actually committing to putting two speed humps on Blackburn Avenue. We worked with Josh on that and the Dirks as well. And then we also, after they told us at the meeting on site that we had people speeding out. We put a stop sign and we've sent out notices and everything, but we have a website that they can go to that we made sure they were all aware of that is calgodevelopment.com and that has a form. It has all my contact information on it. So we've, we've been open and talking throughout and we've tried to reach out to whoever expressed interest. Okay. Yeah, that was helpful. I know we always encourage that in this process, and a lot of times the issues that get brought up have an opportunity to either be discussed or addressed, so I just wanted to get some clarity on that, so thank you. Vice Mayor, I have a question about the development plan process. I know that's something that we're not here to consider or maybe even discuss but if and you tell me if my question is inappropriate if a development plan has been approved before the zone change what council member brown i'm sorry but that's exactly what is not appropriate to be discussed in this hearing because the development plan is not relevant to a zone change as a development plan i think people remember is its only requirement is to say here's one way that that land could be developed if we got the zone change and the developer is not bound by what the development plan says and so I know a question has been raised about the procedure about that happened with the planning commission but that's not what is on our agenda and so we should not be considering that. Okay. It looked like Tracy Wade was going to say something. I mean, was she going to say just that or was it something else to be added? I was just going to answer whatever question you might have about development. Yeah. Vice Mayor, I'd almost like to ask my question and then you just tell me if it's inappropriate. Okay, we can do it that way. Yeah. So is there a process that takes place where a development plan can be approved before a zone change is approved? So I'm going to rule your question is, unfortunately, it gets into exactly the area that we should not be discussing. So I'm going to rule it out of order. Okay. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate this. My questions, I have two different sets of questions, one for Ms. Wade, and then the other would be for Mr., I believe, Warner. So I'll start with Ms. Wade, and I'm referencing the 4th Street Zoning Study, the page, I believe, 18, where it talks about the opportunity districts, and it references this oval brown shade area, 4A. And maybe I'm not reading this page correctly, but that oval shape is on the 4th Street side of Blackburn Avenue. And so if I'm looking at this, then I would think that where 345, the loft exists, that's where that falls underneath 4A. but the properties that are back closer to 3rd Street on Blackburn, do they not fall under that 4A brown oval shape? We have that slide if you'd like us to share it. Sure. I mean, obviously, I'm looking on my cell phone at this and zooming in, so. Yeah, Chris, if you can put that up. Thank you. It is hard to read. Isn't it on the other side? It just gets at the corner of our subject properties. But there's no other color associated with the rest of Blackburn Avenue. which I suppose mean that the R2 zone wasn't intended to be changed. There should be consideration along 4th Street for higher density. Of which we have given them, in my professional opinion. Okay, so I guess my next question would revolve around, and I realized that we're not using the same type of densities that I'm probably more familiar with because we haven't had a whole bunch of these zone changes that have come through. But if I were looking at R4 or R3 versus the R5 that we're looking at here, Ms. Wade, can you give me the variation of what that would be? Well, that just changed in the zoning ordinance recently. Okay. If the council remembers, we adopted some changes. But wasn't this zone change passed by the Planning Commission last year in 2020 prior to those changes? So, would it fall under those parameters? Yes, the preliminary plan shows meeting the parameters that were in place last year. The ordinance was adopted on September 24th of 2020. So if the applicant files a final development plan, which is generally the next step after a zone change, they would use, because they're going to be able to build from a final development plan, they would use the new ordinance. So the new ordinance, the R3 zone, which is our planned neighborhood residential, it's the most common residential zone and utilized today, allows for a lot coverage of 25% and a floor area of 0.75 and the maximum height of up to 40 feet. The R4 zone, which is our next higher intensity residential zone, allows a 40% lot coverage, a floor area ratio of 1.6 so almost double and then what was the other thing height the height limitation is still 40 but it can go higher if you agree to a height to yard ratio which the further you push off the side yard or rear yard you can go taller the r5 zone which is presented requested today has a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent floor area ratio 2.25 and a height to yard ratio of four to one okay all right so if they are given if we were to grant an r5 today then Sounds like that they could even do more than what they're suggesting at this point. Potentially, but there are other limitations in our zoning ordinance that other requirements that still need to be met. And those are other setbacks. So rear and rear yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, buffering requirements. parking requirements, and open space. So some of those things do take up land area, and you wouldn't be able to increase the density or intensity of the use. In addition, the Planning Commission does rely on a preliminary development plan for the intent of the development, They are approved in R5 or want to prove an R5 based on what is shown there. So significantly increasing the density, I believe, would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and potentially not acceptable. Okay. All righty. Yes, Ms. Allen, I see you chiming in. I'm just going to ask this and then I'm going to go. But I was going to ask the caliper of trees that if Mr. Warner, if you wouldn't mind to talk about the caliper of the 24 trees that I counted. And thank you, Vice Mayor. We have different calipers based on the species of the trees, but they're generally either two to two and a half inch caliper trees. Okay, thank you. Next, Councilman Mishian. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Ms. Wade, you just mentioned the parking restriction piece. And in your earlier presentation, you talked about a shared agreement with the parking for 345 and then this new development. And I know that was in some of the planning commission documents. could you talk more about the parking piece to my question basically is is there enough parking does it meet the restriction because I know that parking on the street was also a concern of the neighbors it does meet the parking requirement and in fact the applicant utilized extra parking on the adjacent lot, the 345 lot, to help meet their requirement on this lot. In that way, they're sharing the parking. One of the other comprehensive plan concerns is over parking, so they're not providing too much parking. We know that this area does have visitors from time to time, I would say, especially when the university, Transylvania University has events at the track and field complex just at the end of the, of Blackburn at 4th street. And so we saw some photos with a lot of parked cars in the right of way. And if you noticed there were, the lights were on at Transylvania's field. So my planning assumption is that there was an event happening there that day and that could have led to additional parking on the street. So to alleviate some concerns about the parking on the street, the applicant has agreed to provide on-street parking as well, which is above and beyond the requirement of the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I believe this question would be for the petitioners. We've had a lot of talk about community and community needs and affordable housing. And some of the people who spoke tonight brought up some of those themes. I wanted to see a clarification on the projected monthly rent for the apartments that you all are proposing. as my first question, if that's something you'd be able to provide. And then secondly, would residents who would be renters or occupants of the apartments have the option to purchase units or would it be a rental only situation? like that um rents are uh our projected rents are probably going to be very similar to what we see at the flats at 345 um the unit types are very similar to the small um one bedroom at the flats um and both in size and in layout and so i'm making sure i have that correct rent for you right now, I believe it's around, let's see here, we're starting, right now our one bath is starting at 920 for the flats at 345. We have not set the rents for this building yet. As we stabilize, they'll probably be a little bit lower than that, but we don't typically project our rents farther out than 60 days. Okay, thank you. And perhaps this question has been answered, but I believe that it's a question for planning. I'm just a little bit confused about this. When we're talking about medium density, which was discussed quite a bit today, which is which is meant to complement and enhance existing developments and the context of the neighborhood. Is there any indication, and again, this may have been answered, but I just want clarification, of what types of zoning fall into the category of medium density? Is that part of the definition? I believe, Ms. Wade, this would be a question for you. I don't think it's embedded in the comprehensive plan in that form or fashion. But in the slide we showed earlier, each development type and place type has recommended zones. So under the second tier urban, some of the recommended zones are R4 and R5. And if those zones are recommended, I think they come from the most suitable development types. So you start with a place type and you say which development type is suitable and then which zones would accomplish that. And so I would interpret the comprehensive plan to indicate R4 and R5 zones are appropriate and recommended to meet the suitable land development types. Okay. So place type would be second tier urban. Development type would be medium density residential. And then the zones would fall under that one level down. Okay. It would generally be R4 and R5. Okay. Those are just the initial questions I have. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Ms. Wade, one of the issues we talk about is, or we can't talk about development plans, but we can talk about buffering and contingencies we can put on a zone change. Is that correct? Yes. and so when we do that we can make the zone change contingent on what we want to put on that buffering if we think that it's it's not enough as is right now that's that's available to the council if we want to do that correct correct okay thank you Ms. Jones wanted me to add that that would amend the conditional zoning recommended by the Planning Commission and so would require because it already has one recommended. So we could just do two readings then if we had to if there's a material change is that what you're saying? Yes. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Councilman McCurron, I see you're still waiting, but if you don't mind, I'm going to. I haven't spoken yet. So Ms. Wade, I want to go back to the question of basically how the system is envisioned to work with the medium density and the particular piece of property we're looking at. Would you review what actual zones are envisioned as appropriate? I believe the comprehensive plan recommends R4 and R5 zones for the second tier urban place type. And no other uses? No, that's not true. That's what I'm asking. In the second tier urban, there are several suitable development types. Medium density residential is the least intense. It goes up from there to medium high density, high density residential, medium density non-residential or mixed use, and then high density non-residential mixed use. And those different development types, again, may be appropriate in some locations, but not others. Okay, I guess that's where my question was leading. So although you could get a zone change application for that particular piece of property, And it could be one of those, that series of uses that you mentioned. Is that correct? Someone could apply for that. Someone could apply for that. Okay. And the reason I ask that is that this, well, it's the difference between what R4 would permit and what R5 would permit. and procedurally if the applicant has requested our five our job is to say yay or nay and I believe we're not in a position to say well you should have applied for our four because that is lower density and it might be more appropriate for this neighborhood is that correct That is correct. I believe those conversations happen much earlier in the process than the council hearing. What the council is empowered to do is what Mr. Councilmember Ellinger mentioned were conditional zoning restrictions. And so if Ms. Lamb also mentioned how the ordinance had changed and a higher density could be permitted with a different building or a different layout, the council is empowered to restrict density through conditional zoning restrictions. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you for that. Council Member McCurron. uh and i'll be brief here but i want to go kind of cycle back to what we were discussing a few minutes ago with with the buffer and uh and carson or mr clinton if you either one of you guys would mind speaking to it on on if you'd be willing to do anything to help help with this property um i believe that is a big concern um that my colleagues have also addressed too is some of that buffer space. Would there be anything that you'd be willing to do to help with that? I'm going to take that question first and then turn it over to Mr. Boffman, but I understand the concern and I think that we are willing to try if we can. I want to just make a clarification and explain our reluctance to agree to moving the fence inward. And the reason for that is this. In terms of, and it's a legal issue, in terms of moving a fence from the property line inward, that establishes an artificial boundary and basically says that the property owner where the fence line is, we're saying that this is the fence line. If left in that position over enough time, Mr. Clark or successor people owners could say that the grass or the property outside of the fence is actually our property now. It's called adverse possession. So it's not that we don't want to help Mr. Clark. We don't want to necessarily give him some of our land here. And so that we couldn't do, but we could look at possibly making some changes to the landscape buffer and Mr. Warner might be able to address this better than I would and Mr. Boffman would actually have to agree to it as on behalf of the applicant to increasing or doing something to help with the landscape buffer that would be satisfactory. Okay. Thank you. I don't think we can show. So let's go to our, let me find the right slide. I guess we'll start with the tree canopy on slide 21 of our supplemental and then we'll switch over. And then after that we'll switch over to the original presentation as well. Just give you a little heads up, Chris. Stand by please. Okay. So I'll start with the what Kevin touched on a bit ago with this tree canopy. This is an existing this green kind of I guess blotch I'm not sure what else to call it is existing tree line that's there and in the bright green are trees that we're adding. If we can switch over to, it's a colorized version of our plan on page 24 of our regular presentation. I thought it was important to show that that tree line does go most of the length of that property line. And once this plan is pulled up, we can see where the rest of our green spaces are, including the mini space between the parking lot and the building, but also more importantly, the buffer between our building and the property line. As Chris said, we are hesitant to move that actual fence line from the property line, but we definitely consider and really we're planning on putting an ornamental fence along Blackburn so it's not walling that green space off from the street. And then that property bound fence line would be your standard really residential fence that most people have in their backyard, a six foot dog-eared type fence. So looking at this plan, it doesn't show where the existing trees are on this, but it did come probably about two-thirds down with an existing tree line, and we are adding those extra trees. You can see in this bottom corner between the building and the property line, we can make that see-through. We just have a hesitation on actually moving the fence, but we're happy to look into doing more landscaping if that's something that... Carson, I'm going to interrupt you here because I'm running short on time with that. And I appreciate you pulling that last slide up that you showed, the green space again. And I know you guys went over that and keeping that there in your proposal. But my concern would be the gaps in the building. I understand that the view shed is probably something for your tenants or residents that you'd be considering. But maybe if you would be willing to, in those front five trees before the green space that you're currently keeping, maybe consider planting instead of a two and a half inch caliper tree, maybe a three, three and a half inch caliper tree. just to help kind of, or further to help grow a little bit expedited. And I want to ask one or two more questions before I'm done here. We talked about the speed tables, and I know that's something that we've spoken about before, and I've spoken with the neighborhood about before too, before the applicant applied for this. But do you guys have a timeframe of installation if this is something to approve, or have you spoken with traffic engineering about this? um where are you guys at yeah we we've spoken with traffic engineering uh about it um we have a note on our development plan that'll be at time of development um we um and really that that means at the time of development um the primary reason we want to do it at that time is if we install those speed tables and then have um the construction of this 36 unit building We don't want those speed tables to break down with the trucks coming back and forth or anything. We've spoken and agreed to have all of our construction traffic come from 4th Street and leave onto 4th Street so they're not disturbing the rest of the neighborhood. And so with that fact, we would be able to install one. The exact location has not been determined, but we'd be happy to install one farther up, maybe just beyond our site on Blackburn Avenue to go ahead and start slowing those down. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I thought we might get through questions. This is at least one person waiting and I wanted to get back in and we've gone another couple of hours. So I'm going to suggest that we take another 10 minute break. We come back. We'll finish up with council questions and then close the hearing. It's 913. Let's try for 925. Thank you. All right, Vice Mayor, you're on the air. Thank you, and welcome back. Next person to speak will be Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And this question is for Ms. Wade. Ms. Wade, I don't have this in front of me. I don't even know if I was in the chamber if I'd have it in front of me, But there are various different options for buffering and for buffering and not just landscape buffering. And I was wondering if there was an easy answer that you could share options or opportunities or thoughts of what could be used. not saying that they need to but well um i guess in my mind a buffer is typically a landscape buffer um it can also be interpreted almost as a setback like a building setback in in this case they're meeting the or they're exceeding the landscape buffer that's required for the zone based on their plan and the conditional zoning restrictions recommended by the by the planning commission. Generally a landscape buffer would include grass shrubs trees fences potentially walls. Is that yes that's that's Helpful. Okay. Yeah. I appreciate it. I've just couldn't wrap my head around it. And as we are thinking about this, I think that there, I don't know what others are thinking because we're not right next to each other in the council chamber. So it's so, but, but I think that there might be a appetite for adding something else. And just to ask the question, if we wanted to do a condition on height of building, if I remember correctly, I think over on Nicholsville Road at Southland Drive, there was some type of a condition about the height? Yeah, I believe it was a maximum number of stories. Okay, I believe so, right. Somebody else talking? Tracy Jones said, or was it feet? I think it was floors. I think that is correct. So I just want to put that out there so that my colleagues know. And I mean, I'm not suggesting anything at this because I think there's still some conversation. But I just wanted to put that out there and get clarification. So thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wade. And thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. May I offer a point of correction from an earlier statement I made? Yes, ma'am. Council member Sheehan asked about the parking requirement and I said it met the ordinance. They met the requirements after they applied for a zoning variance. So they did ask for some relief from the planning commission to reduce their parking by five spaces. And so once they were granted the variance, they do meet the requirement. Okay. members any further questions for anybody. And unless anybody objects, I would also suggest that we lift we over root our usual rules and even if someone else someone has spoken twice that they'd be allowed to speak again. So that we can get all questions out. So does anybody have anything else? I see no one else. In that case, I will now declare the hearing closed. And what that means is that at this point, there's no further evidence. There's no further contributions from anybody except council members and council members. This is the time for us to talk about what we see and what we think and to move towards a decision. So I will open the floor for comments amongst council members. Council member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll get us started since this development or this zone change is close in proximity to the district I represent. I think the 4th Street Corridor has benefited from the reinvestment in that corridor, and we continue to see it. I appreciate the increased housing types that we're seeing. And I know we have an affordable housing development that's slated for nearby that corridor. I think the proposal that, not the proposal, but the development that we're talking about today isn't an affordable housing, but it's, you know, hopefully it will address housing affordability in the city. And one of the reasons I'm leaning towards supporting it, I want to hear what other council members have to say, is we're really not displacing anybody. I think when we're talking about redevelopment and infill opportunities, displacement is always a concern. Now, the concern about tearing down potential historic structures, that's always something that we have to keep in mind. But it's one building, and it sounds like it's in somewhat condition, and it doesn't meet, and it's not identified on the national register. So I don't think that's a real big concern. But the fact that nobody's going to get this place to create these additional units that we need, I do see that as a benefit. The other thing I do see as a benefit is this, you know, this development has kind of progressed in stages. The first development came, and I always ask people if they live anywhere near 4th Street, I ask them about that development and how it's impacted their neighborhood. And mostly what I hear is positive comments. I think the on-site management is a benefit, and I'm talking about the previous development. And in the way they address issues, I think, is a benefit to the neighborhood and to the corridor. So I hopefully wouldn't expect anything less from the future development. And then in addition to student housing, you know, I think there is some student housing in that area. I think Transy's population is what it is. BCTC, you know, we're not talking about University of Kentucky type numbers. So I think it's opportunity to have a diverse residential opportunities in that area in addition to students. So I don't have a real strong concern about that. And then some of the comments that were shared by the resident, Mr. Shockey, he had said some of the things I was sitting here thinking in regards to infill and redevelopment opportunities in regards to gentrification and displacement. And I think I spoke to some of those before, and I think he kind of reiterated some of the things I was thinking, as I think this is an opportunity to increase additional residential units without displacing the traditional neighbors that are in the neighborhood. But I do share some concerns about Mr. Clark just because of his proximity to the development. So I would just encourage and employ the developer, if this moves forward, to engage and to work with him, because I think his proximity to this potential development, if approved, he's going to be the most impacted just because he's the closest to it. So, you know, I do have concerns about that, but that's all the thoughts I have right now, but I'd be interested to see what other council members think. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member McCurron. Thanks, Vice Mayor. I know it's getting late. I see that my colleagues aren't too talkative anymore. But, you know, I think Council Member Brown brought up very, very good points there. um we heard it a few times tonight the three d's density diversity demographic i think after the property that's on the corner of fourth street blackburn it started showing the density diversity and demographic is fitting for the piece of property there and after you know after the discussion of this is student housing it was it's shown sure some students live there but you have elder people who live there. You have young professionals who live there. You have a good mix. And I think that's important to what we're looking for in the growth of our city. You know, as we look at the 50-year plan of Lexington, what does our downtown look like? Is it still a vacant lot? Or is it going to be, you know, building infill and development as we've been talking about for 20-25 years. I appreciate both sides presentations and I appreciate the discussion that we had, the robust discussion that we had tonight. Affordability and affordable housing is huge to, I believe, every person on this council and we've shown that in our record that we focused on that. Now affordable housing comes when we don't have housing available. rent goes up, this is an option and opportunity to provide housing, to provide denser option of housing in the downtown area, in a second tier urban area that will help with creating other openings across Lexington. I don't know if any of my other colleagues want to speak tonight. And if so, I will. Okay, then I'll wait here and I'll come back. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay. So nobody else has signed up to speak. So before there are motions, I'd like to share my thoughts. I think the challenge for infill is to do two things. It's to maximize density where it's most needed and to be sensitive to the context of the development that's being proposed. And in this case, the context is as unusual as anything I have seen since I've been sitting on council and in my time in the planning commission. it's really unusual to have this kind of you know within two blocks old industrial underutilized properties commercial properties modest houses very expensive houses and so the flats when it was built it basically is on 4th street I know it's also on Blackburn, but the point was made that it's appropriate and partly it's appropriate because it's on an arterial. What's being proposed now is going to sit squarely on Blackburn. I don't think there's enough transition between the existing building, existing development and the residential neighborhood. I mean, part of what I'm struggling with is that Blackburn, it's a part of the north side, but it's really not typical of what's on Third Street, at least not on the, I guess it's the 400 block. It may be on the 500 block. Anyway, there's a mix. And so in my mind, the question is, you know, what would be the best use of that particular piece of land? I would like to see it used for some density. I'm just not convinced that this amount of density and the mass of the building, not the height, I don't have, that doesn't bother me, but it's the mass of the building and that it is squarely on Blackburn. So I would have been happier if they had come with an R4 proposal that was slightly less dense and would maybe a little more land around the buildings and so on, but that's not what we're presented with. We're presented with an R5 proposal and we have to decide whether we're up or down on that. So I'm interested in hearing more from other colleagues as well. I just wanted to kind of share the way I'm thinking about it and I guess more generally say that the question of context and how we deal with that is going to be our challenge going forward as we talk about infantile redevelopment. This is one more difficult example. Okay. I've now got Council Member Lamb. Let me get, I'm sorry, let me get Council Member Worley, who's not had a chance to speak, and then I'll... Vice Mayor, I would be happy to yield to Council Member Lamb now that we've moved into a different stage of the discussion. No problem. No problem. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. I appreciate that, Councilman Worley. And I was going to say something just because we are in a different phase and we start all over again and we get our two times again and then some or whatever we end up doing. So I do appreciate that. No, I and I appreciate, Vice Mayor, what you just said, because what I have I've been listening to is. I've been listening to what everybody both sides and infill and redevelopment. This is I mean, this is what we've got two vacant lots and we have an empty house and this is infill and redevelopment. So this is where I'm struggling here, because that's the that's what it's supposed to be. However, I think that what vice mayor said, and I'm not going to repeat everything, but I do agree that contextually and, you know, it doesn't just you don't go from a 36 apartment unit to a single family house. And it's like, even regarding the height, it's still, it seems that they just, I mean, there needs to be a little bit more progression there. So I appreciate, and I remember in 2017, and I went back and looked at the minutes and Council Member Bledsoe and I, we made motion for that. And it was a unanimous vote. I mean, just so, I mean, you know, but, you know, those two lots were vacant back then, too. So, I'm anxious to hear what more people have to say, but I think that we have an opportunity here to work with, and I'm hoping that we can come up with the proper way to move forward with this, where we can meet the middle. And that's what I'm hoping for. So I don't have the answer. I'm not going to act like I do. So, but, but that's what I have to say for right now. Thank you, vice mayor. Thank you. Council Member Wally. Thank you, vice mayor. Thank you, colleagues. And I think it's important to note how long this has been going. And that Councilman McCurron has done everything that he can to accommodate his constituents and their legal representation. and while also working with the developer, and I want to applaud him for that. I would say that while I understand, to a certain extent, the concerns about contextualization, yes, Blackburn is not fourth street, I don't see a better example of infill and redevelopment while keeping a respectful eye towards the neighborhood than this, in my opinion. We were talking about three stories, not five, six, seven. This is not what came for us before us in Maxwell. That was eight stories tall. This is three stories and it's 36 units. It's not 55, which would be available potentially. It is contextual in nature. And I think also when you look at it, right next door to it is an R5 development, but But that is also, while larger, is not overwhelming to the neighborhood. Right behind it is an industrial use. So quite frankly, this is a good buffer between existing uses as we redevelop. It's a vacant piece of land that's now going to create a residential use, while admittedly a little bit more dense, but a residential use that would protect detached single family from industrial, which is what you're looking at now. I think that this is appropriate use. We have to see opportunities for actual vacant land. You know, our sustainable growth task force is talking to us about an inventory of vacant and available land. And folks, there's just not much of it. And what we call vacant or call available don't always work out together. In this situation, they do. So we have vacant available land in an infill redevelopment area. You have a developer who is willing to build something that's respectful to the neighborhood that they want to be a good development. They own the development right next door. They have a vested interest in this being a good neighborhood. So I just in my opinion and then to go back to to what Council Member Brown has talked about and what we've heard. there's no displacement here and when we talk about gentrification of these neighborhoods you have to look to displacement of peoples and culture and in this situation neither is being moved out of this spot and i so i i think it's appropriate infill and redevelopment it's not a massive building i mean we we can talk about you know in a contextual nature but three stories 36 units uh this is a moderate development that creates an appropriate buffer between an industrial site other r5 and uh and the neighborhood i i think that it's a i think it's a win-win for everybody i understand everyone's concerns change is difficult um we we always have to be be careful we're always leery but to me this is a this is a good development thank you vice mayor thank you Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I was like Councilmember Bledsoe. I thought, yeah, I remember this very well a number of years ago, and in our effort to try to be responsive to the neighborhood and also be mindful of the need for housing and diversification and options and infill, and that's a tension we're going to have to manage from here on out. This has been every zone change I feel like we've ever had has had to manage that tension. How do we grow and provide housing diversification? We'll also be mindful of that impact on the neighborhood and the traffic on the neighborhood and the impact. And I think both Vice Mayor Kay and Councilman Worley presented both options from different perspectives. Depends on which way you happen to look. If you look here and look that way, you see the buffer one way. If you are in the other position, look on the industrial side and look, you see the buffer the opposite direction. I think both are probably true. and I think the hard thing about the building itself is if we go in you go up if you go out and you keep the height down and I'm not sure which would be you know better for the neighborhood but I think it's more consistent the plan they presented with the other development and so in that sense I think why it might be massive maybe feel maybe more intrusive from a landmass perspective, it probably fits as well with the neighborhood as what's already there. That's just my gut. I mean, I agree with some of the challenges with change and with traffic, but I think that the opportunity to have two lots with an opportunity, you know, there's difference between, we talk about historic value versus old, and I say that as someone who has both in my neighborhood, in some of my districts, some that are not, they don't qualify as historic, but they're definitely old and very mindful of that and keeping the context of the neighborhood is challenging when they're transitioning. And I don't know, I hear the tension and I sympathize with the desire for R4 over R5 in that sense. But my gut is this is a good opportunity with developers who have a vested interest in making it work. And that to me lends a little more, not credibility but a little more gut to say I think we should move forward that's just my initial thoughts thank you thank you council member Reynolds thank you vice mayor I think every zone change is a challenge because we're in this tension of wanting to preserve our neighborhoods often historic neighborhoods and the need for infill um but our our comp plan says that we need we need to do infill and this is a great opportunity like my colleagues have said um i for me uh how something looks is really important and i think that's the bigger question and and we're not discussing that or voting on that right now um and so i just wanted to mention that there are apartment complexes um nearby not not right nearby, but there's the Arctic lofts on old Georgetown, not that far away. And they're very modern. And there's, there's some other buildings that are higher in the area. So it wouldn't be a unique building, especially with the flats already being there. I don't think that there's a way to, to maintain the neighborhood exactly like it is or build homes that look historic, though I wish there was because how things look, like I said, is really important to me. But I hear the neighborhood's concern and it's valid. And I hope that the developers will take their concerns into consideration and maybe make some modifications. But I am in favor of this because I think it does, it just completes our mission of infill. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate your comments about context in the neighborhood, and I think that's important. And maybe one of the ways that we can help protect the context of the neighborhood is, Council Member Lamb mentioned earlier, a height restriction. I think that's part of the plan going forward, but maybe we can put that as a condition just to reassure the neighborhood that we're conscious about the context. And then, you know, the transition between the density, the density transition, I think, you know, I think the 18 feet is what the Planning Commission recommended. And I would, I would, I'm interested in to see if we can expand that. But I also know that that, you know, that's money in units, that impacts the development. But it's just, you know, I think we ought to be cautious about the transition between that level of density. And if there's anything that we can do without hurting the development, but also being responsive to the neighbors concerns, I think we need to consider that. And then I also want to just to mention, I appreciate the constituents and the folks in the neighborhood hanging in here with us and sharing their feedback. We need that as we make these decisions because they're not easy decisions and we just need to know what their concerns are and how to address them. So that's all I wanted to chime back in. But thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. And I see Councilman McCurran and then Councilman will agree. Councilman McCurran. Vice Mayor, I believe I've already spoken once with Councilman McCurran. Thank you. We'll go to Councilmember Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Councilmember McCurran, for allowing me to go first. I'm feeling a little bit of tension with this decision because I really want to help to implement the goals of the comp plan and to do it in a suitable way. And I certainly want us to have more housing stock that allows for more people to be downtown denizens and to live, work and play in our neighborhoods that are close to many amenities that they can enjoy. And I am hearing everybody talk about how this is a great example of an infill project and no displacement is occurring. And I concur with that. I also feel concerned about the context and the progression into the neighborhood. And I'm trying to figure out how we could buffer, reorient to better serve the neighborhood and to further our density goals. um uh council member james round mentioned mr clarr's property and that's the property that i'm thinking of you know when we see the trees that are on the map um that are are demonstrating green space very near um the proposed development i believe that some of those are on his property he's very very close um to this development and um so i'm i'm trying to think about how we can actually, as it states under medium density residential, you know, goals like actually complement and enhance the existing neighborhood and make sure that what we're doing, if we're deciding upon a zone change of this sort, is adding value for the long term. And so that's what I'm trying to figure out as I'm thinking about this decision. And I really appreciate all of my colleagues' comments. Because it helps me understand where they're coming from and their thought processes. So thank you for the chance to speak and thank you to everyone. Thank you. Councilman McCurron. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues for again hanging in here with me and Councilman Brown threw it out there a little bit ago. So I was going to wait until closer to the end. But yes, thank you to all of the residents in the area, everybody who stayed on to listen and speak, to the applicant, to the objecting side. Thank everybody. This is a long process, and it's not necessarily the easiest process as we do look forward how we move forward in our city. But unfortunately, these are the issues that we start to run into as we run out of that available land to develop. And these are options is, you know, what what are we going to put as the best purpose of this land for our near future? I do. I think that this is a good use of this area. I think that the R5 zone that happened back in 2016, 2017 shows and how the land is accustomed to the area. Vice Mayor, you brought up that, you know, how it comes out onto Blackburn there, but that development currently is larger and still does the same thing. It comes out onto Blackburn. They're willing to work with the neighborhood on speed tables or speed humps. They're willing to work with, you know, other traffic calming measures. And I do appreciate that. I understand that this is not the same view shed as what everybody was seeing once before. But in urban area, this is commonly what we what we have to start embracing as we focus on the infill still. You know, with that being said, I would like to move to approve the motions of fact. So move. Second. Just to be clear, Councilman McCurron, you are moving to approve the statements of fact as recommended to us by the Planning Commission. Yes, sir. Correct. Thank you. And I have a second. And I don't know who seconded. Council Member Woolley seconded. So we have a motion and a second for approval. as their discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. Thank you. And I see Council Member James Brown also. I appreciate the motion and I am going to, I want to support this, but I do want to add another layer. I don't want to steal thunder from Council Member James Brown if he's going to do something, but I would like to make a motion to amend and add conditional conditions of what they're saying three floors, that it can't be more than three floors. And I guess I would need to make sure from our legal team that this would be the appropriate time because it would be needed to be added in the findings of fact for the conditional restriction. Yes, I think this would be the appropriate time if you're trying to amend what Councilmember McCurran's motion was because his motion was to adopt the findings of fact as recommended by the Planning Commission. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I move to amend Council Member McCurn's motion to add a condition on that would be no more than three floors high, which is what they're projecting right now. So move. Second. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Discussion of the amendment. Seeing none, all in favor, please signify by raising your hand. I see one, two. I hope that clerk has got that. Anybody opposed? I see one hand in opposition. That amendment passes. Now we're back to the original proposal. Council Member Brown, are you still? Yes, sir. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I mentioned before I'm interested in making a motion to increase the buffer, but I just don't want to arbitrarily throw a number out there just for the sake of it. I guess, can I ask Tracy Wade or Tracy Jones if there's some kind of formula that goes into consideration? Or how do we talk about or consider increasing the buffer? The height of the building proposed was 36 feet. So this was half the height of the building. 18 feet is half the height of 36 feet. So that was how it was determined to be appropriate. Okay. Vice Mayor, I'd almost like to hear what Council Member Bledsoe has to say. She might have some information that may help. I'll defer and come back to you if we need to. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Brown. I don't know that I have much to add, but my concern is this. when we increase one or the other you you absolutely increase the cost price so if our goal here is to keep the cost of the of the rent or the housing lower than higher we can't have both you can't keep keep the um i'm sensitive to the point you're making which is on the buffer and i think being half of the height makes sense i think we go too much past that and you you're to increase the cost of the housing per unit and that's that was the only concern I was going to raise is that we have to be mindful of that implication and which is better or worse for the neighborhood or for the goals of the city's objections to begin with that's that's all thank you yeah that kind of that kind of justifies my concern as well um so I'm going to hold vice mayor thank you council member mccurrin um thank you vice mayor uh i will ask then what is the normal buffer for an r5 miss wade then the normal yes ma'am what's the typical between properties four to one so the height can be four times the width of the side yard. So if the side yard, in this case, a 36 foot tall building would only necessitate a nine foot, nine, is that right? Yeah, nine times four is 36. Yes, nine feet. Okay, that was my question. Thank you. Thank you. yeah customer bring you back in or you just left your hand up yeah i'm not i'm not i'm not in i'm not going to make a motion okay okay um then i need to um ask council member ellinger to take the chair because i would like to make a motion yes sir uh vice mayor recognized thank you so So, yes, if we increase the buffer, it either increases the cost of the units or causes them to be fewer units. And we don't know about the cost. I'm not comfortable with the buffer we've got. there is not in my mind significant and not sufficient transition so i think at the very least and i'll make this motion and see what the conversation is that we ought to add about 10 not about we ought to add 10 feet so that there's a clear green space in that neighborhood and there's a clear demarcation between the development and the neighborhood. That, I'll say one other thing. If you just look at the two lots and the house and you don't consider anything else, that is the perfect infill and redevelopment spot. And the proposal is perfect. But that's not the case. And so I will move that we add 10 feet to the buffer between that building and the adjacent property. So move. We have a motion for 28 feet. Tracy, do you want to comment on that? You need to turn your mic up. Sorry. Do I have a second? Do I have a second first? Yeah, there you go. Do I have a second? I'll second it for discussion. I just wanted to make sure that there's all, one of the conditional zoning restrictions that came forward to you in the planning commission recommendation was that there would be an 18 foot landscape buffer. So is the vice mayor's motion to amend that to add 10 feet to the existing conditional zoning restriction? Yes, that would be 28 is my understanding. Okay. Is that correct? Vice mayor? Correct. Any, any further discussion? Councilman Worley. Thank you, Council Member. I appreciate, Vice Mayor, what you're trying to do here. I understand the sentiment, but this now makes, from what we've heard, the minimum setback was already doubled by what has been proposed, and then this would make it tripled. so i i understand what you're trying to do i think we need to buffer appropriately but to me this now seems too far a bit of overkill for the situation uh given that what we've just heard is we already had a double the minimum uh landscape buffer set by the ordinance so that that that's my concern about pushing it this far because that changes calculations with with parking and and with all sorts of other open space and green space, while this adds green space, of course, to me, this throws off calculations that I'm not able to do in my mind, and we don't have in front of us, and this now triples what was already a double, so that's my concern. I'm not sharing, but I do need to just inform Mr. Klandennan, who had his hand up, that he will not be recognized. the hearing is closed this is now only a conversation amongst council members i apologize for that but that's the procedure council member lamb your hand is up i know i couldn't get the darn thing to um okay i appreciate your your thoughts on this vice mayor but i have to i have to come back off of it you know i mean i i asked for a three-floor top, but what I would like to see, and I understand, it's my understanding that the neighborhood asked for the fence as a part of the landscape buffer. I personally, if I were living here, I would want to see a softer, but I can't support extending it 10 feet because I do understand that rises the cost and lessens the number of units and then we're we're defeating the purpose of the infill so i appreciate your thoughts but i just have to say i think there might need to be like a softer landscape buffer but that's my two cents worth thank you chair vice chair is there any other um discussion seeing none all those in favor of the amendment raise your hand i see you and with the i can't see all them so if the clerk would give me the number and all those against all those opposed i didn't get the number but it looked like it failed vice mayor do you have anything else thank you I will pass the chair back. Thank you, sir. Okay. Once again, Council Member Brown, did you seek recognition? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Kind of in the spirit of the same motion that you made and kind of to the point that Council Member Lamb had made, maybe an additional two feet will give them an opportunity to soften that buffer. So I'd make a motion to amend the 18 foot buffer in regards to the planning commission recommendations to 20, a 20 foot buffer. So move. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member McCurron. I'm trying to grasp what that would look like. and I know this is going to be tough because if we can't, can I ask Mr. Clendenin that question of how they feel or is that inappropriate? I mean, for me to be able to see that, is this going to take away from their entrance space? Is this going to crowd it? You know, there's a variety of facts or questions I have on it. Okay, so I'll just tell you what the problem was with asking a question of the council. And that is that the council will be inclined to make a case, as is his job, for his client. And then we would need to allow opposition, if they wish, to speak to that. So the procedure is once the hearing is closed and everybody's asked the questions they need to ask, even though we get, I've been into this before, that my ruling is it's not appropriate to have him speak. That's fine. And as usual, when I make a ruling, if anybody wants to make a motion to overrule my ruling, I'm happy to entertain it. and i i respect that uh what you said i without those answers though moving forward i do respect that the planning commission doubled it and made it to 18 feet and uh i'm i'm gonna vote against this thank you thank you any further yes uh councilmember clover device mayor i think i'd like to echo what councilman mccurrin said we we don't know exactly what any number of additional setback is going to do here since it's already doubled the minimum and you know two seems like a nice small friendly number but we we don't know exactly what that is going to do to everything what we do know is the minimum was nine and the recommendation to us is 18. So when we're talking about the setback distance, they've already very generously doubled that to help and while we know there's tension here and we all are feeling it because of the neighborhood and the transitions as people have said, I don't know that moving that setback at all is really the mechanism we have that's going to help here. So that's my two cents. Thank you. Council Member Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have to be concerned about the neighbors, and I don't know if this is appropriate, but I would just like to ask the question if they can work with the 20 feet, not if that's what they want, but can they still do it with the 20 feet, yes or no? Is that a question that we can ask? I'm sorry, but I have to kind of go back to the same procedural rule that I cited. Okay. Now, again, if it's the will of counsel, we'll suspend that and people can start asking questions of counsel. But my ruling is we can't ask that question. and again if somebody wants to make a motion to overrule my ruling if that's the will of the council you know i'm happy with it but that's my ruling for the moment council member bledsoe i'll just say it one more time i completely concur with the desire to have a good transition, but we don't know the answers to those questions. And two feet is exactly right. It doesn't seem like a lot, but when you do two feet on the entire side, that is going to have an impact and it will absolutely affect the development in some way. And maybe the ask is of a developer to make sure that there is a transition of landscaping and transition of something that softens that in a way that makes it nicer to the developer without taking away foot space. That would be my alternative plan to a number of feet as a setback. I don't see anybody else at this point who has signed up to speak on the proposed amendment. So all those in favor of adding the amendment to add two feet, please raise your hand. One, two, three, all those opposed. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. That motion fails. Are there any further discussion on the motion that's now on the floor unamended, which is to approve the findings of fact? vice mayor i believe that it approved the findings of fact as amended with had the three story i'm sorry i'm sorry you're exactly right this is the approval of the findings of fact as amended no further discussion all those in favor please raise your hand two four i'm sorry one two three four five it's gonna be easy isn't this a roll call vote vice mayor i think i think i think the um i'll ask well i thought that until we got to the actual ordinance it's not a roll call And is this a material change? Well, we need two readings. Let's see what Mel has to say. I think it is a roll call. Plus, I think there, I don't know, but I think there's some difficulty with counting the votes just by the raising of the hands in terms of that. Secondly, I think it is going to be a material change, but because it wasn't in what was sent to you and it does add a new condition that wasn't part of what came to you. but as you know you're just going to read the title so the title doesn't include the conditions but yeah i think you are going to have to do a material it is going to be a new first reading and then you're going to have to spin the rules and give it a second reading okay so madam clerk if you would call the roll please yes sir i'm sorry i couldn't hear it well do we have to make a motion for a first reading then? I think right now we have to see if this proposal passes and then we would need a new first reading. Okay. Our parliamentarian. The motion on the table is to approve the findings of fact as amended. So if approved then there would be a reading for the ordinance itself. So this is simply to accept the findings of fact that would then back up the ordinance and we would need to then have a reading and a motion on that. Okay. So we do need to call the roll. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Kay? No. Mr. Koiber? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Lamb? Yes, ma'am. Ms. LaGree? Yes. Mr. McCarn? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Ms. Reynolds? Yes. Ms. Sheehan? Yes. Mr. Worley? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Baxter. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. That reflects passage of the motion, and that will, as we've been told, require a new first reading of the ordinance. Madam Clerk, when you're ready. Yes, sir. an ordinance changing the zone from a two-family residential r2 zone to a high-rise apartment r5 zone for 0.655 net 0.717 gross acre for property located at 325 329 and 333 blackburn avenue blackburn development llc council district 2 as amended thank you thank you and we don't need a vote at this point we need a motion to amend vice mayor to suspend the rules and give second reading I'll make a motion to suspend the rules and give second reading thank you I have a motion and a second to suspend the rules any discussion all those in favor please raise your hand thank you that motion passes madam clerk if you would give second reading please yes sir an ordinance changing the zone from a two family residential R2 zone to a high-rise apartment R5 zone for 0.655 net 0.717 versus acre property located at 325, 329 and 333 Blackburn Avenue Blackburn Development LLC council district 2 as amended. Thank you. Move for approval. I have a motion to approve is there a second? I have a motion and a second to approve any discussion on the motion. Council Member McCurron your hand is up is that just you didn't mean to leave it up okay I see no one signed up to speak. So again, Madam Clerk, please take a roll call vote. Yes, sir. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Kay? No. Mr. Koiber? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Lamb? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Legree? No. Mr. McCurn? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Ms. Reynolds? Yes. I'm sorry, could you repeat that, please? Yes. Thank you. Ms. Sheehan? Yes. Mr. Worley? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Baxter? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. That vote reflects approval. And before I ask for a motion to adjourn, I want to simply second what's already been said to thank the staff, the Planning Commission, the neighbors, the applicant for their work on this. It's a set of hard issues, and it's important to the community. We all appreciate the time that's been put in. So thank you all. Now I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second without objection. We'll stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.