All right. Thank you all for being patients. We're two minutes late here for the November 2nd Zoning Committee meeting. We're going to start with Mr. Krom and the zoning map amendments. Good afternoon, everyone. Are you picking me up? All right, that sounds good. The first item on our agenda here is PLN MAR 2318. This is a request by Joyland Crossing LLC, and it's a request to rezone the properties located at 2200 Old Paris Road and 2324 Paris Pike, the applicant is seeking to rezone the B3 and R1B zoned portions of the subject property to the medium density residential R4 zone. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to accommodate a multifamily residential development at this location. Within the discussion of the place type and development type that comes with zone change applications, the applicant has identified this as a corridor place type and a medium density residential development type. With the property's location on Parris Pike, a significant corridor, and the style of development being proposed, staff agrees with both the choice in place type and development type can be appropriate at this location. So just to orient ourselves here on the screen, we have the subject property shown in white. It's located generally here at the intersection of Parris Pike and Old Parris Road. This is just past the interstate. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can get a better idea of how the subject properties are related to one another. So the subject property here is currently zoned B3. It was rezoned around 2015 in order to establish some restaurant uses. Those were never established. A handful of conditional zoning restrictions were placed on that particular parcel at the time. It limited particular uses in the B3 zones, auto sales, cocktail lounges, and also mandated some required landscaping along its shared border with the single-family residential zones kind of further down Parris Pike. The other subject property, 2200 Old Parris Road, is currently zoned R1B. This is the existing zoning that's been in place of the property. A previous applicant had requested a rezoning at that location. However, it was ultimately withdrawn with questions about access and the availability of certain public infrastructure. The applicant today is seeking to combine both these two properties into a singular request to rezone this to the R4 zone. In the immediate vicinity, we do have kind of a variety of zoning. If you look on the map, this red line here is the urban services boundary, so the subject properties are located within it. However, the railroad, which runs to the rear, serves to sort of delineate those properties from some AR zoned farms to the southeast that are outside the urban service boundary. But in the immediate vicinity, we have some existing commercial development along Parris Pike, as well as residential as you're getting kind of closer to town. So a mix of zoning in the vicinity, but the properties with frontage on Parris Pike are kind of overwhelmingly commercial at this time. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property. So the parcel at 2200 Old Paris Road was the curb bar, as well as an auto repair use. Despite being zoned R1B, these were nonconforming uses that had operated there for a significant period of time since been abandoned. And the parcel here is currently vacant. In the immediate vicinity, going further down Paris Pike as it turns into North Broadway, we've got a Waffle House. We've got convenience stores and several other commercial uses, the existing residential subdivision along Strawberry Fields, the farm that is located outside of the urban services boundary, an existing single family residential home here, and then a working horse farm operation with residential zoning located here. This is located on Parris Pike, and so the proposal was brought to the Parris Pike Corridor Commission. They did have some concerns regarding the proposed development and the access and the traffic that would be generated by that. So ultimately, they recommended disapproval on their end, but I will go into the development on the site. So here we have the development plan for the subject property. I'm actually going to switch to an open space exhibit that the applicant also provided. It's a little bit clearer about kind of how the site is laid out. So the gray is actually open space in this particular diagram. So we have a number of apartment buildings. So these would be four-story units. The first floor would be sort of a parking structure with three units or three floors of residential above. This would be six structures with a total of 165 dwelling units. It is worth noting that there are attached to these multifamily residential are some accessible units. So in the letter of justification for this request, the applicant touches on the importance of providing accessible as well as kind of higher density housing at this location. Access for this site, and Mr. Martin will go into it with a little bit more detail, is generally lining up with Rogers Road with an emergency-only access off of Parris Pike. So this would be only for emergency vehicles and is a requirement based on the number of units being proposed at this location. So the apartments in this particular case are centered around this green open space, the amenity building, as well as the pool. So we have these six structures with all but one having first floor parking areas centered around that green space. Within the letter of justification, the applicant touches on several aspects of the comprehensive plan, specifically the parts of the comprehensive plan that call for developing along our corridors with a higher density and higher intensity residential use. So this is providing housing and meeting some of those comprehensive plan goals and objectives. We have a, as a supplement to the multifamily design standards, there are some renderings of kind of the proposed design. It should be noted, though, that there have been some tweaks since this was originally generated as this structure's design has changed, but just gives you an idea of the overall kind of look and feel of the development and how it will be laid out. While the applicant has provided this, we are still seeking more of a robust written description of how they are complying with the multifamily design standards. But this gives you a general idea of that first floor parking structure with residential over top. In addition, there's also requirements when you are having that first floor parking regarding articulation and activation that the applicant should provide some further information about as well. Moving back to the site plan, one of the main comments that staff had in their review of this application related to transit. So there are transit lines that serve this immediate vicinity. However, none that's service on this side of the road. There's a stop nearby at Parkside. And so staff would like kind of further information on how individuals that would be living at this development can safely access transit, whether that's incorporating a stop or coordinating with Lex Train in order to provide that on this side of the road. But how are these individuals going to be safely accessing transit services that are available in the area, but just haven't been provided on that side of the road. So with that, staff is still seeking some further information relating to the public outreach, how they are meeting the multifamily design standards, as well as how they are addressing some criteria that are primarily relating to activating those parking structures as well as connecting these individuals to transit. So staff is seeking further information. We are recommending postponement at that time until a kind of more robust explanation has been provided. As always, Mr. Martin will be on to discuss the development plan that corresponds with this particular development. But at this time, I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff. Yes. When the staff makes a recommendation of postponement or whatever, was this information passed along to the applicant? Does the applicant know about your postponement recommendation? Yes, we provided a copy of the staff report this morning. Well, okay, then my next question will be reserved for the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. good afternoon daniel takes a lot of my fun away you know he gets to talk about the plan because as you all know i look at the plan as if the zoning's in place so as daniel already explained we're out here along paris pike parkside rogers road again defining elements, the railroad, the railroad of dislocation. Tom, microphone. I always forget this. I walk around without this. So, I can't stop walking around. How about that? I was just talking to the microphone. This is the challenge for me. Alright, so, again, just to reorient you one more time, Paris Pike, old Paris Pike, North Limestone Extended at our Y, our tough intersection right here, the railroad that defines it. This is a triangular piece of property. This is, of course, the border where there was a lot of discussion about the buffer with the properties next door. As Daniel explained, I believe it's... I agree with him. I like... Oh, wait a minute. All right, Daniel, what did you do to me? Were you trying to get to the opening space exhibit? Yeah. You'll probably need to go back. Further? Yeah. I got you. There we go. Yeah, I like this. I'm with him. So as you review this development plan, access, as Daniel mentioned, lines up with Rogers Road. And typically that is the safest way you do it. That's the way it's recommended. We're very much aware that you have access here. You have access here. You have access here. There's a light here. and of course the I-75 interchange. So there's a lot of stop and go. There's a lot of traffic in this area. Access along with traffic movement is problematic. So that is something that has to be addressed. So access, and they have to have access, obviously, the previous band had access. But the challenge is getting it to function as safely and as efficiently with the system that it can. Now, Daniel mentioned again, 165 units, the four stories, three residential above. Keep moving away slowly, don't. I told you this would be the challenge, moving away from the microphone, so they can record us for posterity. Again, the layout, very triangular with the parking, you can see. and here's their open space amenities with the pool and the clubhouse. You can see access points here. You see, look for these. These are access points into the parking, into the parking garage. These are dumpster locations. The green space exhibit is good. We had requested that so we could see that they did, in fact, meet the open space requirements. Again, it's triangular, and you first look at it, you kind of question, where's the usable open space other than around the pool and the clubhouse? So a couple other issues that this plan has to address that came about on the last plan was very much a challenge. The addition of this little triangular piece where the curb was located in the transmission shop has actually benefited tremendously this overall development. It allows them to address these infrastructure issues in a much more efficient manner. and that is one is that the detention basin will be located here. They're adjacent to the existing stormwater system. The last one was separated. They had a challenge. How are we going to get to it? That was a big challenge for that last development. The other aspect is the sanitary sewer. The pump station is back on the other side of the railroad, down old North Limestone Extended, old Paris Pike. There's a pump station right there near Strawberry Fields, a little residential development. It's been there for quite a few years now. They have to get to that pump station, which means they're going to have to bore through a railroad under there or come down the right-of-way where it's very constricted. And they're aware of this. That's what they have to do. But having this as part of their property makes it easier to address than for something for them to work on. So, again, those are the infrastructure issues in that regard. This morning there was some concern expressed about the buffering, and it was well received by your subdivision committee. And there was some discussion about, in fact, a condition was added to resolve landscaping along this border with the residential and also out of concern for Parris Pike and its character, particularly as it extends on out and becomes more pastoral and farm-oriented. So there was discussion about the appropriate landscaping along that frontage. And that was actually a condition that was placed on the plan by your subdivision committee was to resolve the appropriate landscaping. And again, part of that discussion was what's the best way to do it? What would be appropriate relative to Parris Pike and relative to this context? Used as an example, Newtown Pike has an overlay. Newtown Pike requires three, four-plank horse fences with trees spaced because at the time that was implemented, they felt that was part of the character. Man of War has a plan that uses berms and shrubbery and small trees, large trees, that sort of thing. So what your staff would like to do and what we told your subdivision committee, we want to work with the applicant to come up with what we can present to you at the hearing as the appropriate landscaping along these edges, the frontage, and along the border with the residential. And again, this is a preliminary development plan. You will see a final development plan. And that's when some of these issues will be fully fleshed out and resolved because that's what they're going to build off of. They're not, well, the access, again, is problematic, wanting to make that function. There's been discussion about possible traffic signal. This is District 7. This is a state highway. They will make that decision based on the conditions that they see and what they deem warranted. Again, with that, your Submission Committee did recommend approval with the additional condition on the landscaping that I mentioned, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on the development plan. The entrance, the vehicle entrance, could someone turn left on Parrish Pike if they were exiting? Could a vehicle turn left? Well, they're going to, they can. Yes, it's open. It's a full intersection. And that's one of the issues. Obviously, left turns. That's where you get your conflicts. That's where the discussion about the light came in. There's been some discussion kind of on the periphery about modifying that access point. And we haven't fully fleshed that out and really looked at what would make that work. But it's possible that a right in, right out with the proper design, then what they would have to do is just go up and come around. And that would avoid much of the problems during rush hour and the stacking and the amount of traffic that's associated with this area, this area, these intersections in the interstate. Yes. Well, just traffic is particularly high on that stretch of Parris Pike in the mornings and in the late afternoons, 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock. It's really tough. I can't see. Is there a sidewalk along Parris Pike there? No. Yes, there is. On that part, there is a sidewalk? Yes, they're planning a sidewalk. And so... Oh, I was going to say they're planning one. I thought you meant now is there one. No, but they're planning one. And that's another thing. They added... Let me show you this while we're thinking pedestrians. They have sidewalks internal going out to here. They also have a sidewalk bringing people down to this intersection where the light is. And they've added, you can see this access point as well for pedestrians to get them out there. But, yeah, they're planning on putting a pedestrian facility in, yes. Okay. And I would agree that particularly since the first floor is parking, I would like to see how that engages, that facade engages with Parris Pike. And I thought I had one more question, but it's not coming to me. So thank you. All right. Without further questions, we'll go to the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I do have, well, it came to me. I would like, what was the, the Paris Pike Corridor Commission, they're recommending disapproval. What was their reasoning? Access. Access. Access. All right. Thank you. I'm Dick Murphy representing the applicant on this, and we have Fred Eastridge from Vision Engineering and Jay Million from Million Architecture, and Corey Johnson and Fabi Singh representing the owner of the property here with me today. This is a property I've worked on before. Some of you may remember six, seven years ago we had the zone change Mr. Crum mentioned on the northern parcel from residential R1B to B3 done by the then owner of the property. At that time, the applicant did not have the southern piece, the curb bar property at that time. We went through the process and had the hearing on this property. And at that time, it was established by all concerned that our property would have one access point to Parris Pike, and that would be opposite Rogers Road. That was granted. Our development plan showed a convenience store with gas station, fast food restaurant with drive-through facility, sit-down restaurant as well on this property. Those owners later sold it to my clients, my clients purchased this two years ago. After we got the zone change, or I helped get the zone change six or seven years ago, the curb property came in for a zone change request also to B3 by a different owner. I wasn't involved in that one. Vision Engineering was, but I was not. And at that time, that zone change was indefinitely postponed because their only access point was the current access point at the intersection of Old Paris Road and Paris Pike. And that was deemed not acceptable, let me get back to where I was here, for a development at that point. So the southern part was indefinitely postponed. It's still zoned R1B. The rest of the property is Zone B3, Highway Service Commercial, on the property. Now, the real plus of this plan right now is that it lets us eliminate this access point down at Old Paris Road and Paris Pike. We keep doing that. That will, however, be an emergency access for the fire department. Captain L'Engle was adamant that he needed that open as a fire access, but it will be gated and shut to everyone except fire department and emergency responders. So all our traffic will be coming out opposite Rogers Road. And I was made aware that the Parris Pike Corridor Commission had reviewed this and had turned it down based upon the location of the access point. because I understand there was some discussion that the access point should be placed up here as far away as we could get from the intersection with Old Paris Road. I was not notified of that meeting or allowed to speak to the meeting. We would have told them about the issues about the location of the access point. I think traffic engineering and planning agrees that it should be opposite Rogers Road. This is a state-controlled highway, as you all know, and ultimately we will have to do whatever the state tells us to, whether they're going to want a traffic light there, whether they're going to want additional turn lanes, whether they want a right-in, right-out. The state has the ultimate decision-making ability, and we'll just have to do what they tell us to do on this property up here. But we have located it at the safest possible intersection. The other thing I want to point out is that by having the zone change to R4 from B3, our traffic level is going to be decreased. We're going to have around a third of the traffic that the fast food restaurant, convenience store, sit-down restaurant, whatever was on the curb property would be generating. So not only are we having one access point, which is much safer, we're decreasing the level of traffic that is generated from this property as opposed to what it would be in the B3 zone, which is existing on most of this tract right now. I brought up my wrong piece of paper. We are I understand the concerns Mr. Crumb has mentioned and we will work with them about the issues about especially the lextran situation and the activation of the first floor of the property I do want to point out that our plan does though show a new sidewalk along the entire higher frontage of Paris Pike and the Lextran route goes, right now, Lextran comes up Paris Pike from, it comes up Paris Pike and turns on Rogers Road and does come back. And obviously there's no bus stop along this frontage right now because it's a vacant piece of property but we're happy to talk to lextran about getting a bus stop or bus shelter on this side of the road to service our population coming in coming in here so what we'll talk to them about that that's normally I think a final development plan issue but we'll reach out I think someone this morning said they had had some preliminary discussions with lextran on that the but But this will be two-bedroom apartments. It's workforce housing, which is greatly needed right here. We think it's probably a more appropriate use of this property than the previous use proposed for convenience store and fast food restaurant on this property. So we're very pleased with what we're proposing to you. We're going to be meeting. We have representatives of the Joyland and Paris Place Neighborhood Associations here. We've been trying to set up a meeting. Churches don't like to have meetings about zone changes, I guess, anymore. So we're going to try for Bryan Station High School next week. But we've been talking back and forth, and we will have the meeting with the Neighborhood Association before your meeting on it. So we, as the staff mentioned, we have hard boundaries on this. We have the railroad. We have Parris Pike. And additionally, along Parris Pike, we have a 24-inch water main along Parris Pike. And I didn't know that, but that's the water line that serves Toyota, 24-inch water force main along Parris Pike. So that's in addition to the hard boundaries of Parris Pike itself and the railroad tracks that we're dealing with. And the subdivision committee raised issues about buffering along our northern boundary. And we'll look at that as well. The boundary, this portion of the boundary is one lot. It's a two-acre lot, zone R1B. Down here is a border of a, what the PVA lists as a 12-acre lot, which apparently is a horse farm, listed as a horse farm right here on that property. So we'll be looking at that buffering as well. So I think that's basically what I wanted to cover, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. I think, Mr. Murphy, you've answered at least a part of my question related to the fact that you've already been in conference with the staff, or will be in conference with the staff on things. Looking at the areas of postponement, have you reviewed those? Are you saying to us in effect that you agree with all these things, you're willing to work on them, or is it some areas here that you take exception to? Okay. I left my recommendation over to the desk, too. We got that this morning, and I think the main issues we need to look at are the activation of the first floor of the garages, the guidelines call for windows and other openings, and we do plan on those. our renderings do have windows in them, we just need to show those to the staff and see if we need to make changes on those. We need to address the... Help me, Daniel. So we've got the main kind of issues that staff wanted to address was filling in the public participation, you know, the neighborhood engagement, addressing, you know, in the letter of justification, the multifamily design standards, touching on the transit axis, which really most of the development criteria here are kind of speaking to that, and then sort of the activation and kind of how this is presenting to Paris Pike. So those were the main things included within the staff report. And we'll engage with the staff on all those items. I talked to Mr. Sewey this morning. He said we do comply with the open space requirements. He's reviewed those. We'll continue to work with the staff on those items. Then how do you, are you okay with a postponement? Well, I'd like you to recommend approval. Well, I can imagine you would be. Because I think this is a better use than what's there, what we have zoned for. But if you want to do a postponement, we can live with your postponement recommendation. We will still be trying to work through these so that if we can be heard in the November hearing, that we can be heard on that. Do we have any more questions for the applicant and Mr. Murphy? Thank you very much. and that will leave us here for conversation amongst ourselves. Oh, do we have any questions? Oh, there we go. Good. Do we have any questions from the neighbors? I think we do. Thank you. Please. Well, thank you for being here. I need to be reminded of procedure. Thank you. My name is Catherine Perkins. I live at 258 Swigert Avenue, and I'm here speaking on behalf of myself and a few of my neighbors that I've talked to. If you decide not to postpone this, I think that you should consider putting some conditions on it as well. Some of these conditions were applied with the B3 that I believe are recommended for this property as an R4. That would be the buffering As you know that subcommittee Subdivision committee I believe put some on it I don't know what they recommended But I think that The 20 foot buffering With tall trees That these things have to be Spelled out In the conditions That you recommend So that would be one of them To restrict this property to residential uses only. And I think that that is important because we know that LFUCG is undergoing some ZODA some text amendments and those are incorporating multiple zones into one. We have no idea whether the draft or when will be accepted, but if you restrict this to residential uses only, that makes it what they're applying for, residential only. And the density not to exceed what they're asking for, I think should be also one of the conditions that you can put on this, or recommend be put on this property. The buffering, I think, should, and I agree with subcommittee's recommendation, that it needs to be beautiful on Paris Pike. I think some of you know there is an interlocal legal agreement that says that this corridor, Paris Pike, is protected end to end. I know the city only believes it's protected from Johnston to the Paris city limits, but it's still the corridor. It is the gateway to Paris, the gateway to Lexington, and I think this needs to be made beautiful as beautiful as possible my concerns are for how this meets imagine Lexington for walkability how our pedestrians going to cross the road safely from what I can see it's barely safe enough to cross the road in a vehicle. I've seen lots of clusters going on there and accidents. So I think that that needs to be addressed. We've been through this, as Mr. Murphy says before. I believe in the past the access was granted by the City, tell me if I'm wrong, with the caveat that the State approved that access. You did mention, I think, something about that the The state would have to give approval. My brain is, why grant a zone until that? We know that that can be done, that that access can be utilized. What else? Parking not exceed 1.5 spots per dwelling unit. So I'm also very concerned with the water issues that paving and rooftopping this property may cause. So I encourage, and I don't know if this is on you or on planning, that this does not increase the problems that LFUCG has been working to fix and mitigate in Joyland, across the street a little bit south of this property is a large sinkhole on a property that is currently open not developed and I can see water running that way and water running down onto old Paris Pike unless conditions are made that water I don't know how you have in your plan Mr. Murphy for directing water and controlling that from flooding underneath the bridge the railroad crossing bridge what you plan to do with the water from all these rooftops and pavement and I think that that is a big issue I'm trying to think of what else to do so again the increase if you can condition the buffering even more. I think you should. With the large deciduous trees, 30 inch in width, Mr. Martin mentioned the fencing that Newtown Pike has. I know Paris Pike has a setback on it in the restricted part of the corridor, I guess. I'm not sure. I thought it was the whole corridor. I also feel Well, with these zone changes upcoming that are in draft, that it's almost logical to put a moratorium on things unless you condition this property. Put a moratorium on zone changes until we know what R4 is actually going to be. Is it going to be R4, B1, and B2? Or is it just going to be R4? And it looks like it may be R4 and B1. But if you condition this property now as an R4 restricted to residential and story, I think that you can go whichever way you want. Thank you. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, we have some more from the... Hi. Welcome. I'm Amy Clark at 628 Castle Road, and I want to try and not repeat what's already been said. I think the important thing to really bring out that to me is very important is, and I will say, I think the buffering is essential a lot. Ms. Clark. Okay. So just to say, I believe the buffering is essential along the whole of the Northeast. This is our 1B. This is our 1D. There's an active horse farm here. In fact, it has returned and been restored to being a horse farm. This one has been what it's been in the subdivision this morning. They said, gosh, things are changing. It will all be different and soon. or that's what we anticipate. Well, these properties have been this way or been improved for horse farm use, in this case, since the Paris Pike Commission was established and the whole interlocal agreement. Fortunately, there's a huge area that's got some kind of a water easement, so it looks like putting trees along the frontage on Paris Pike would probably not be terribly burdensome. It would be possible. So that's enough for buffering. What I really want to emphasize is this is transit-oriented development, Monquay, at best. There's a bus that goes seven times a day in and out. It's the north side connector. It connects to Georgetown Street, the social services area, and it connects to Eastgate Mall. So you're not talking about workforce commuting downtown, that kind of thing, not on the bus. I love the podium parking in that it doesn't waste as much land. But this is a site that is absolutely bottled in by the railroad and by Paris Pike. and pedestrians can't get much of anywhere. There's a light here. In fact, one of the drawings in the applicant's file showed pedestrians going down here and crossing here and then to get here to cross the street. All the stuff like shopping or something to eat is on the other side of the street. As far as I know, I'm not sure where the bus is. I'm not sure that the plan has showed us where the bus is yet. There's a school up there. There's park land. There's quite a lot of public housing up here, affordable housing. So this property is highly isolated unless there's a way for people to get across the street. I question whether it's really right for high-density residential development. I certainly think residential is preferable to B1 uses that churn the traffic in and out as if it were part of the interstate. So I think what's critical in your decision on whether to make a zone change or not for a reasonably high-density property, medium to high density, is whether you can control the traffic to be safe for vehicles going in and out, especially in the morning on the way to work and so on, but also for pedestrians. And I think you should not accept the zone change, not recommend the zone change, until you know about this access and about the connectivity. And at this point, we don't. It is in the hands of the state what they will allow, what they feel is warranted, what they feel is safe. But Lexington is special that way. We have our own standards, our own aspirations for what we want to achieve in transit-oriented development, in pedestrian connectivity generally. and so I would urge that you not approve the zone change until or unless you are satisfied that there is a safe and convenient way to get on and off the property and if the property is Joyland Crossing you should be able to cross Paris Pike to Joyland. I want to mention just a little about the environment down here if you don't know the area very, very well. This is coming from Old Paris Pike here. There's a dense townhouse development. But more than that, that townhouse development actually connects through to Russell Cave. People who want to get from Bryan Station to the interstate access off Paris Pike come along that route. It's almost a collector, okay? And it's steep, it's curved, visibility isn't terrific here under the railroad path. So that also contributes to pedestrian challenges here and vehicular challenges as well. And as I said, that's the only light. These are berms along the railroad, so it's a little steeper there. This property looks a little bit down on this. I hate the thought of them seeing four stories of building when they themselves are maintaining a farm or a residence. So thank you, and I appreciate the time. Thank you. All right, thank you. Do we have any more comments from the community? It does not look like it. Do we have any more comments for, I do actually, for Mr. Crumb, please. I'm hearing quite a bit about the landscape buffering on the piece of property perpendicular to Paris Pike right there. And it seems like that can be resolved and that the applicant is willing to resolve that. Now, the property on facing Parris Pike, are there landscape, even though this property is not, I guess, underneath the Parris Pike corridor, it seems like the neighbors would like to have it still meet the Parris Pike landscaping requirements. Are there Parris Pike landscaping requirements? I'll defer to Mr. Martin. Okay, thank you. Because I'm hearing it, and it is kind of a uniform look going down. It is. It is. And in terms of what we tend to view our corridors and our landscaping requirements, the answer is no, not in this particular area. It's out. Yeah, the out part. What is the statute? I haven't looked and seen. I don't know. Because we don't see anything out that way other than maybe a BOA case or a residential development, the issue of buffering a residential or commercial development doesn't come up, per se, in this particular area. And that happens other places where we don't have a set standard. So what we do, Mr. Nichols, is we look at other standards. We work with the applicant, try to determine what's appropriate here. we have in the past for instance fallen back on the man of war requirements along harrodsburg road palomar there you may remember some of that discussion and about that landscaping and how we address that so we use those components because we want to be able to have something specific to say this is what you need to do uh newtown pike i used as an example because they had a uh that ordinance requires plank fencing. Well, plank fencing may or may not be what we're looking for here. So your subdivision committee, the condition that they imposed was resolve so that we can work with the applicant and try to come up with the appropriate landscaping, which we then want to present to you. Now, you're going to have two choices. You can go Daniel's route and put conditional zoning on it and say you will here it is yeah you're right because he's a zoning planner you you can go tom's route the development plan guy who says just put a note on the plan and specify specifically what is to be done which is a route we do frequently on these types of developments i think i prefer that route personally and the reason i was looking for something to tie it to was for that purpose because if i mean if it's still resolved you would want to have some sort of standard to point to or neighborhood involvement yes i think it would be easier to use an already designed standard or reference something so if the applicant could do that that would be we always have that is what we do we want because we we want to reference a set standard that's appropriate, again, for the area. Absolutely. All right. Thank you. Do we have any more questions? All right. Do we want some? We can do a comment. We're going to keep it brief because we have some people that need to be leaving. Thank you very much. Me too. There's a lot of confusion about what exactly the Paris Pike corridor is and what its boundaries are. The boundaries of the Paris Pike corridor, first just to say, we needed to widen Paris Pike. It took many years of disputes. And the judges, the settlement that settled the lawsuit so the construction of the pike could go forward, was the first dictating of terms how it shall be. There is a Paris Pike Corridor, I'll call it an area or a district. It is contiguous with the boundaries of the National Register District established as they began the process with saying this is special and the roads matter. So there's that district. It goes all the way to the curb bar on that side of the road. It starts at Swigert. Is that right? Okay. Yes, thank you. So it starts at the curb bar and goes north all the way to Paris, comes back from Paris, and stops at Swigert. Okay? That area of the pike, so on one side only in this particular area, is part of the Paris Pike Corridor area or district, which was defined by the National Register District. In the agreement that settled the lawsuit so we could build the road, widen Paris Pike, it stipulated that there would be planning and there would be zoning protection, regulatory protection for Paris Pike, and it would belong to the different parties that signed the interlocal agreement because it was between Bourbon and Fayette. Okay, I don't want to get in the weeds here. But what Fayette did was set an area in the rural area. It has an overlay of 1,000 feet in width. It did not finish what, in my view, was dictated by the settlement, which is to protect, to establish appropriate regulatory protection for the whole of the corridor. So if we're thinking about should it be more beautiful, is it warranted to have landscape buffering along this side of Parris Pike, which is in the corridor area, I would say yes, absolutely. And it should be consonant with the historic Parris Pike corridor. Okay? Does that make sense? Yes. Do you have anything to change or correct? She knows it better than I do. And I'm glad you said that so the applicant can consider that in the resolve recommendation if it comes in that fashion. I think he said resolve. I think it's resolve. Yeah. Yeah. We can do that. Yeah. Yeah. I have one other comment to make, but it's very clear. I was at the Paris Pike Corridor Commission meeting that heard this, and we did not get any details. They were not given any details as the application was just submitted. so we made the recommendation for disapproval. I do sit on the Paris Pike Corridor Commission, but I'm not speaking as a commissioner. I'm speaking as someone who cares about Paris Pike. And I know that the city does not consider this part of the protected, but it is still part of the corridor that the Corridor Commission hears about. And we believe the access was totally wrong before. We still do, but we could not make any other recommendations or discuss anything because we had nothing. It was presented to the Corridor Commission on October 9th. The application was submitted on September 29th. Is that correct, Mr. Murphy? I think so. Alright, thank you very much. Mr. Murphy. We'll be brief and then move on. I just want to clarify. We're going from a total auto-centric development, B3 proposed and approved, approved by the Parris Pike Corridor Commission eight years ago, approved by the state of Kentucky, to a safer situation with a lower traffic generation, removing the access point at the curb bar, making this a much, much safer situation. We are doing everything we can on our property to make this pedestrian friendly. We understand it's an issue to cross Paris Pike, but our development is doing everything it can, putting sidewalk on Paris Pike, putting connections. We even have a connection down to old Paris Pike, old Paris Road on this. So we are doing everything we can to make this pedestrian friendly. We will work with the staff on making this, activating the first floors. Fred told me, Fred Eastridge told me, I need to point out that we will look at the buffering along that and work with the staff on that. Kentucky American has an ironclad easement starting at the edge of right of way on Paris Pike where they have full control over 50 feet, I think, 20 feet long there for their pipe. So we've got to deal with them too. But we will be looking at all that. And this is in the Paris Pike area, but it's not in the overlay area. That's the difference in there. We're not in the overlay. We're in the Paris Pike study area. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the commissioners now. If there's no questions, I would make a motion of postponement. I'm just going to check my commission members if y'all had any other questions, concerns. Second motion. I really appreciate the project. My concern involves the highway or the Paris Pike, which is obviously State Road. I worry about the fact that there's no crosswalks anywhere near it, and if somebody wants to run across the road to go to the gas station, I think we need to work on our pedestrian aspects of the property. But otherwise, I appreciate the added housing. So I make the motion to postpone PLN MAR 23-18. Second. Okay. All right, we're going to vote via a hand vote. All right. All in favor, right hand. Unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. The next item on our agenda here is PLN MAR 2319. This is a request by Black Soil, our Better Nature LLC, and it's to rezone the properties at 760 and 762 Florence Avenue. This is approximately .15 acres of land that is currently zoned R2. The applicant is seeking a neighborhood business B1 zone in order to establish a grocery store use at this location. Here we have the subject properties located at the center of the screen there. It's a little difficult to see, so we'll zoom in, but this is headed out Georgetown Street in Florence, which runs between Price Road and Douglas Avenue to the south. So zooming in a little bit closer, you get an idea of the zoning in the surrounding area, and it is solidly R2. So this is an existing residential area with a particular property that has a somewhat special history because of the use that has historically occupied this site. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property, so we've got existing residential development all around it, but however the structure that is occupying one of the subject parcels is an existing commercial use. This was a non-conforming use that had operated for many years as a convenience store. However, since closed operation, the applicant wishes to rezone the property as that use has been discontinued and establish a grocery store use associated with black soils. Here we have a view of the development plan for the subject property, and it consists of an existing structure shown here. The lot line runs basically along this boundary here. The adjoining parcel is vacant. It had a structure on it many years ago, however, was demolished and now primarily serves sort of as an informal cut-through to a community garden community facility located to the rear. The applicant is proposing to make some improvements to the site. They are going to remove parking, some substandard parking areas that were located in the front portion of the property and backed out directly into Florence Avenue. So those are going to be removed, replaced with seating and patio areas. The applicant is also proposing a sidewalk to provide connectivity to the rear of the property. They are proposing the required landscaping. However, if the subject property's structure adjoins the existing R2 lot here, there is not sufficient space to accommodate that particular area of landscaping, and they are seeking a variance in order to reduce that landscaping in that area to zero. The applicant indicated that this is meeting several goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, speaking to providing neighborhood-scale facilities, shopping, dining, etc., and reutilizing these existing properties. Staff in the review of the application found that it met those goals and objectives. They did want to note that the subject property is displaying a gate that is labeled as being open during business hours. Staff would like to see if there was some way that either the location of the sidewalk or that fencing could be reconfigured to ensure that the access from the community garden in Roosevelt could continue even if the business was not necessarily open. But otherwise, staff finds that it is in agreement with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. specifically related to encouraging pedestrian movement and neighborhood-oriented use. We find it's an agreement with the policies of the comprehensive plan, talking about accessible neighborhood facilities, maintaining sidewalk networks, and improving pedestrian connectivity. We also find that it is an agreement with the site design building form requirements, the transportation and pedestrian connectivity, as well as the green space and environmental health aspects of the development criteria of the comprehensive plan. As always, this is subject to approval of the corresponding development plan that staff will display in a moment. And then after that, staff will give a brief presentation about the requested variance in order to reduce that landscaping near the existing structure. But at this time, staff is recommending approval and would be happy to entertain any questions that you have at this time. One quick question. I'm very familiar with this area. In fact, I was born in this area to the extent. But let me ask a question. I thought there was already a grocery store in that area. So why did they rezone it and then come? So essentially the use with the R2 zone, a grocery store, a retail use, is not a permitted use. And so it had operated at least as far back, I believe, as the 1970s, probably even before, had continuously operated and so was allowed to stay even though it didn't match the zoning. The use has then been discontinued. So it's been abandoned for a number of years and hasn't been operating. So in order to put a grocery store use back there, it now has to come in compliance with the zoning requirements. Quick question. And so the suggestions with regard to the sidewalk access to the community area would be resolved, presumably, during the final development plan phase? Yes. So this is actually the final development plan phase. So this would be resolved. So the approval, the conditions listed in the approval, recommended approval, don't include anything about that? Is that something that we should add? If the Planning Commission feels it's important, staff kind of viewed that as a discussion item. But if the Planning Commission kind of feels that it's significant enough to be included, they can. Yes. It is a condition. Oh, it is. Sorry. Yeah. I apologize. Thank you. I know I'm supposed to use this so they can record it, but that is a condition on the development plan. A suggestion about the location of the site to the community area? No. To be a condition? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I have trained myself over the last 20 plus years to always direct my left ear so I can hear and understand. Because I like to hear and understand. There's no physical changes to this plan. It is a final development plan with the exception of a sidewalk. And putting the sidewalk. But right now it's a goat path. It's a trail that has been formed over the years by the neighbors utilizing it. There is, as Daniel mentioned, a variance requested along this border because they just cannot get, they don't have enough room to put in the required landscaping from B1 to a residential zone. The discussion on the gate being business hours, of course, hinges on is there any threat to the business, late at night, that sort of thing, by having unfettered access. On the other hand, it's an important component to tie it into the neighborhood. It's an important business to the neighborhood, and there's a community garden, and apparently it's being utilized, so it could very well be a pedestrian cut-through for people in the neighborhood to get where they're going. So that's the issue there about the appropriateness of whether it should be maintained or closed that we would like to resolve. And it does need to be resolved at the time of the hearing. So, again, and with that, there's really, like I say, no physical changes. They're going to refurbish the building, clean it up, and that sort of thing. They are proposing, as you can see, seasonal outdoor market and event space with canopies. So we didn't discuss that particular issue a whole lot at the subdivision committee. They did explain that there's nothing permanent in that area. But, again, part of the question with access and what's being proposed is, well, you have an outdoor market. People can go buy produce and other things, whatever's there. But then, of course, then event space. So there probably should be a little discussion about, which we didn't really explore a lot, about events, nature events, timing, hours, that sort of thing, whether or not they're going to have a concert back there. Yeah, Mr. Martin, I agree. I think if events will be, I think, reasonable restrictions on lighting and sound and hours, like we've done in the past, I think would be respectful to the neighbors. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. Mr. Crumb. All right. As I stated earlier, this does have the aforementioned variance request. So the ordinance requirement requires the minimum when we have a sort of zone-to-zone screening. So the changing of this from an R2 to a B1 suddenly kicks in the requirement to include this buffer, which is allowed to go as low as five feet with the inclusion of a six-foot wall, fence, wall, or earth mound. The applicant is not able to provide the required landscaping in these areas. In their letter of justification, they kind of talk about the historical use of the property as well as the difficulties that would presume for the actual landscaping to actually take root and provide the buffer that is being requested. The Landscape Review Committee reviewed this request and recommended approval with no kind of further conditions. But essentially the applicant contends that providing this landscaping would require them to remove part of that structure that has existed there in the configuration that it has for at least 50 years. staff in the review of the applicant's variance request found that there was merit in their argument and that the requested variance would not negatively impact the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the narrow lot and the existing conditions were special circumstances that justified a need for the variance. We found that this should be subject to the conditions that the B1 zone change is granted, along with the standard notation on being noted on the final development plan, obtaining all necessary permits, and noting the Planning Commission action as well. So staff is recommending approval with standard conditions for the requested landscaping variance there. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have about the requested landscaping variance. Well, not the variance per se, but let me put it this way. The applicant has not indicated any public outreach or engagement has occurred. Have they talk to you all about this in any way? With respect to the variance itself, nothing as far as that conversation with the adjoining landowner there, but the applicant is, attorneys are here and can speak to their engagement efforts. All right. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. I'm Chris Clendenin. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm joined by Mr. Barrett here. He's our landscape architect on the project. Just to address what was said, we pretty much think that Mr. Martin and Mr. Crum covered the majority of things that we want to discuss and agree with most of what they said. I do want to address a couple of the issues that Mr. Wilson raised with regard to, A, the neighborhood engagement. To give you some context on this, that's how this project actually got started. So originally, Mr. Crum is correct, apparently this property was operated, as a non-conforming convenience store or grocery store or whatever in the neighborhood in the R2 zone for many, many years. Then for a long time, it's just been a vacant structure and just been sitting there and no use has been made at the property. The property owner purchased it with the intent of putting a house on 760. The structure that exists there actually encroaches to a portion of 762. So earlier this year, we went to the Board of Adjustments seeking a variance for a setback on the adjoining lot so we could actually build an additional house, and that was approved. While I was there getting approval on that, the president of the Neighborhood Association for Georgetown Street approached me. She actually was opposing my variance. Well, thanks a lot, by the way. But came up with the idea and approached me about talking to my client about reopening the grocery store. And so I took that to him. He liked the idea. The applicant got involved with it. We met with the applicant and the Neighborhood Association earlier this year and have had subsequent meetings with them, and this project has basically taken off to the point everybody wants to do it. They think it's great for the neighborhood. Everyone's been very supportive. But we do need the zone change from R2 to B1 in order to be in conformity with the zoning ordinance now. So that is with regard to how this whole thing got started. There has been discussion with the neighborhood with regard to the landscaping. It's literally impossible for us to meet the requirements because the neighboring property's driveway actually comes over onto 760. And even if we put the fence up and go from a 15-foot buffer requirement to 5 feet, we don't have 5 feet. We do put additional, we are proposing additional landscaping buffering along the property line on 760 to the neighboring property where we can actually do it. But where the driveway is, it's impossible for us to do it. And as far as the gate and the proposed sidewalk, I do understand the concern. There has been some concern with the applicant and some of the neighbors about allowing the cut-through, because as it stands now, it's a vacant building. There's not a gate. There's been some safety concerns, potentially, that if there is access allowed on the property day and night, if there's an operating business there, that there may be an issue. With regard to that, I do understand the concern from staff, but we'll agree that we'll just have that as a resolve and we'll resolve that issue with staff prior to the hearing. And we'll try to work with them to accommodate them as best we can, but I do want staff to understand that that is our hesitancy because there's been some feedback from the neighbors with regard to safety and for the property owner with regard to safeguarding the business once it's actually in operation. So this would operate, based on the impression that I have, the grocery store would operate seven days a week, and it would have a long period of operation. And obviously during daily business hours, the gate would be open and the cut-through would be allowed. We'll see if there's some way we can resolve the issue, though. Mr. Barrett can talk a little further about the variants. Do you all have any questions for me at this time? Are there any questions for anyone? Applicant? Mr. Barrett? If you'd like to add anything, if not, we're good to go. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Would anyone in the community like to make a brief statement? Thank you. Hello. Rolanda Wolf Fork, 730 Childs Avenue. I'm two streets over from the store. I'm also the vice president of the neighborhood association, Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association. And yes, we've been working with black soil for almost three and a half years now, providing fresh produce to the community. With them, we do random food bags to the community. Even the senior senators down the street within the area, since they consider us a food desert, it comes in handy. and it was a perfect spot since the building hadn't been used for three years. And so it was like we've been trying to figure out how we can get in touch with them, but when we got the notification of the variants, that's when I went down to the BOA and requested for them to connect. It would be great. Also, the walkway that they're talking about, it's a cut-through. our kids also use it to walk to the school and it's a short distance for them buses don't pick up our children in that area so it's a cut it's a cut through for that but also we have had a couple of people who decide to be using illegal stuff and so it's quite dark back there and if we can have some lighting I think that will help out with the issue that we have with the gate seed leaf is behind it is our other community garden in the neighborhood. People help out with maintaining that garden also. So them giving that access to maintain and pick vegetables out of there as well. On the other side, it's a duplex and it's tight. It's really tight. You can barely hang your hands out and you're touching the house on both sides. So trying to put something in between there you probably can get a herby curvy in between um so it really wouldn't just a little flower would be fine but that's other than that it might die because it's too dark right there um but when you said about concerts and stuff um we wouldn't be too and music on the outside, we wouldn't be so honed on to that. Also, being turned into a club or a silver alcohol or anything like that, that's not the whole, we wouldn't want anything like that in there. But it's also, it's going to have an opportunity for the community to come and learn how to cook the food, grow the food, and see where the food is coming from. It's going to have an educational component plus is going to have where we'll be able to feed students after school so we're working on that as awesome thank you I just have one thing to say if you or somebody from your community had the opportunity to speak when we're in council chambers who would be a good opportunity to talk about how you've worked together with black soil and the land use attorneys to do good in the community. So you're doing great and the more people that hear it, the better. We'll be there. All right. With no more community comments, I do not see any. We'll bring that back to commissioners here. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion. Which one do you want to take the waiver first? I've forgotten What the order is on this? The zone change first. Oh, the zone change first. I move for approval of the, I'm forgetting what it is, number. Well, I've forgotten. Item B, so that's MAR2319. Okay, thank you. I move for approval of item B, whatever it is, 2319. All right, I second. So it's a motion and a second, and we will vote. All in favor? That's unanimous. Thank you very much, applicant. We're going to do the variance. I don't think we need a recommendation of the variance. We did? Okay. Yes. I could say one thing, Mr. Chairman, if I could. The lady makes a really good point. The purpose for this is a grocery store, something that will serve the community. But if by some chance that grocery store did not succeed, what they're saying to us is that they don't want that to be turned into a club or anything like that. So I'm hoping that when we get to the major thing that we would approve it with some restrictions as such as been identified. Thank you. I was incorrect. Go ahead and give us a motion. On the variance? Yes. Okay, move the acceptance of the variance as identified by the applicant. Second. And now I'll vote. Unanimous. Thank you very much. Variance approved. Yeah. Can't lose anybody else after you. Now you're good. I'll just give you a hard time. All right, we're down to three, which is what we need. Yes, yes. And it looks like we've, so the Boots and Craven Home Builders on Paradise has been postponed. All right. The applicant has requested to postpone it, and the attorney is here to speak to that. This will be the shortest presentation of my life. We are requesting a postponement. Thank you. Thanks. I'm sorry. Okay. Oh, do you want to get it again? Yes, so this is item C, so MAR2320, Botts Cravens Home Builders at Paradise LLC. So I guess a motion to postpone that. Move to postpone PLN MAR 2320, Watts Cravens Home Builders at Paradise LLC. Second. All vote. Three yes, approved. Thank you. Good afternoon. We are now moving to the last item on your agenda. This is PLN Zota 23-00006, the Urban Growth Management Zoning Ordinance text amendment. You have heard us speak on this several times over at this point in time. I don't want to rehash a lot of the information that has been provided to you at your work sessions. This is more of an update as well as a review of the staff report that you have in front of you. So over the past several months, staff has been involved with a continuous amount of outreach that has been trying to engage many members of our community regarding this zoning ordinance text amendment that is focused on modernizing five of our urban zoning categories, the R2, which is the mixed low density residential zone, the R4, the medium density residential zone, and the R5, the high density residential zone, as well as the B1, the neighborhood business zone, and the B3 zone, which is our highway service business zone. In addition to those modifications of those zones, staff is recommending the addition of a new zone under Article 8-25 of the zoning ordinance, adding in the corridor node zone or the CN zone, and the modification of Article 3 to produce an affordable housing density bonus within our community. So just to review a little bit of the outreach involved with this zoning ordinance text amendment, prior to any zoning ordinance text amendment, all neighborhood associations are notified about the proposed text change. In this case, the staff provided a copy of a one-page back-in-front summary sheet, as well as a link to the proposed language. The staff to date have not changed the proposed language, and I'll get to that here in a little bit. But that was our first major outreach. From that point forward, staff has worked hard to reach out to all of the organizations that you see on the screen here. We have met with various different stakeholder organizations, including the Builders Association, CPAL, or the Commercial Lenders Association for Lexington, the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. We do have an informational series working with the Coalition for a Livable Lex next Tuesday at 5.30 p.m. at Red Mile. But we have also sat down with many other organizations specifically talking about the environmental sustainability that we are seeking to employ with this tax amendment, as well as trying to describe some of the affordable housing bonuses that are included within this, specifically the adjustments to Article 3 of the zoning ordinance, which would allow for a density bonus of utilizing the provisions of the next land use category up. So if we're looking at the R1, A, B, C, D, or E zones, they would be able to utilize the density and the regulations of the R1T zone, the R1T to the R2, the R2 to the R3, etc etc so these are important elements to try to get a little bit more density within our community for affordable housing providers all too often we have been focused in the past on trying to enhance or entice market rate providers to actually build affordable housing this switches that on the head and tries to provide opportunities within our community throughout our community to provide affordable housing by the affordable housing developers. So we have met with Habitat for Humanity, Winterwood Development Incorporated, as well as AU Associates. They're all very interested in the affordable housing density bonus, as well as some of the members of the government. We have met with the other sections that this impacts, and we wanted to make sure that some of those changes were supported by our partnering divisions. As I said, we are continuing to do outreach. There will be a meeting next Tuesday, election day, in which we will be presenting the overall presentation that you have seen during your work sessions, as well as some of the information that we have provided to the public at their different meetings. Despite some of the work that was done on this, there are always going to be some things that we need to change, review to make sure that we're getting some of the best possible language for our community going forward. The continued areas of discussion that have been brought up by some of our commercial entities have been the concern of creating non-conforming uses within the B1 zone. Within our B1 zone and our B3 zone, what we are trying to do is right-size those, modernize them to actually get neighborhood businesses within neighborhoods, make them enticing to neighborhoods to try to have neighborhood-supporting businesses within their boundaries, and then to make sure that those businesses that are best on corridors, those highly trafficked, more vehicular-oriented kind of businesses, are on our corridors, not in neighborhoods. So within the history of Lexington, we have kind of shifted away from the B3 zone, that has forced some individuals to go to the B1 zone on our corridors. With the modifications that we are making, removing drive-through restaurants, gas stations, and car washes, this would create some non-conformities. Staff would like to see these operations continue to be vibrant within our community. They are businesses that are established and are providing opportunities for employment as well as amenities for members in our community. So we are looking at language that would allow for those nonconforming B1, that we would be generating nonconforming B1 uses to actually be principle permitted uses when they are still in operation. So we are working on language to settle that issue. There are also some concerns about size limitations that we heard from the commercial folks. There was some concern in which in this text we were dropping the size for a single user from 40,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. There was a real concern about trying to get neighborhood grocery stores, specifically a Kroger, think Romney Road or Euclid. Those are larger businesses. Those are B1 uses. We want to make sure that they are able to have those types of grocers or those types of users within neighborhoods because they do support a healthy and thriving community. It also creates more walkable environments if you are able to walk to your grocery store. Within the B3 or the corridor business zone, the commercial entities indicated that they were a little concerned about the distance requirements between gas stations. Within this proposed text, the staff is recommending 1,000 feet between each gas station. That's as the crow flies. Within our conversation, that has really been focused on trying to limit the amount of access points that are right at intersections. This is a health and safety issue. We want to make sure that our gas stations, which are a vital part of our infrastructure, are not hindering our arterial and collector roads right at intersections. There are possible solutions that we are looking at to allow for some of the opportunities that the commercial providers are looking to have with gas stations, but also still provide the best safe access points into and out of our commercial operations, but also those that don't impact our actual intersections. And then again, there is some concerns of the creation of non-conforming uses within the B3 zone as well. Because we are going through with some of these conversations, staff does feel that we have justification for the continuance of this to go forward and go to your November 16th public hearing. But at this time, staff is recommending postponement at this meeting to force us to come forward with those modifications in language, which we are anticipating to have published for the public review and emailed out to the Planning Commission for their review next Tuesday. We are trying to move through this so that everybody has the language, everybody has the information up front. That will give us the opportunity to postpone if we need to. However, staff sees that there has not been a significant amount of pushback on this text amendment, and we have been trying to do as much outreach and education on this text amendment as possible. So staff is still seeking to move this forward, even with the postponement recommendation at this time, to the November 16th public hearing with the idea that you will have new language in your hands no later than Wednesday of next week. If you have any questions about this text or about this presentation, I'd be happy to answer them. According to the Chair, we can make a motion, and I do have one comment for you afterwards as part of the discussion part. So I move approval of this particular text, not approval, but postponement for this particular text amendment. We have a second? Second. More vote? Approved. Right. One thing, first of all, let me say I really appreciate the work you all have been doing on this because I know it's not easy as such. I'm particularly happy about the inducements for developers, the bonuses for developers to do that, because I've always believed that when people do things on their own or because they want to do something that's important, and I appreciate the time and patience you've been taking in order to get this done because I understand this is not easy work to do. But thank you very, very much for including that. Thank you. And I will say, sir, we have been trying to take a carrot approach to this. We're pulling from your words with some of this between the Article III changes as well as some of the density bonuses that we are proposing for the CN zone that include affordable housing, that include green design, things like that. we see this as a win, as trying to entice people to do more while also setting an achievable floor. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let's go back to the agenda. Let's talk about staff items, next meeting date and adjournment, it looks like. Daniel? December 7th. All right. Next meeting is December 7th at 1.30. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.