Council member Legree? Yes. Council member Lynch? Council member Menares? Here. Council member Plowman? Here. Council member Reynolds? Here. Council member Sevigny? Here. Council member Sheehan? Here. Council member Worley? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. Council member Fred Brown? Here. Council Member James Brown? Here. Council Member Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Council Member Elliott Baxter? Here. Council Member Fogle? Here. And Council Member Gray? Present. Thank you. Thank you very much. Clerk, can I have the second reading of the ordinance, please? An ordinance modifying conditional zoning restrictions in a neighborhood business B1 zone for net .0666 gross acres for property located at 509 East Main Street, 509 East Main Street, LLC, Council District 3. Thank you very much. So I'm Dan Wu, I'm the Vice Mayor. I will be chairing this meeting and I'm going to lay out how this meeting is going to proceed. First of all, if the applicant and or the opposition have materials, Please present them to this side of the dais here and our staff will distribute them to council members. This hearing requires a quorum of ten council members up here. We have 13 at the moment. So I just want to make sure council members are keeping an eye on the number of people up here so we don't break quorum and have to stop the meeting. Everyone in attendance is required to be here for the entirety of this hearing. We will be doing a bathroom break somewhere around an hour and a half, two hours in, so kind of just pace yourselves. All right, and council members, please write down and hold all of your questions towards the end as we will be able to ask them after all the presentations are finished. I will begin by swearing in all those who plan or wish to speak during today's hearing. That would be the parties involved, any witnesses, and then anybody giving public comment. If you are planning to speak tonight, would you please raise your right hand for me? Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true and to the best of your knowledge? Thank you. And again, if you're planning to speak, I ask that you stay for the duration of the public hearing. If you're here for public comment, you are allowed to yield your time to another speaker up to a total of nine minutes. So for example, you can speak and two people can yield their time to you for a total of nine minutes. But you do have to be here in order to be able to yield your time. If you're not here, you don't get the extra three minutes. My job as the presiding officer is to facilitate this hearing and is within my purview to make judgments about whether the evidence being introduced is relevant and or repetitious. Thankfully, generally, I've not had to stop anyone in their tracks, but just please be aware of that and kind of listen to what else is happening so we don't have to go over the same information over and over again. Have the witness list been provided to the clerk? No? Okay. So we need a list of witnesses from the applicant and the opposition to the clerk. And have all printed materials been presented to the clerk? I'll take that as a yes, thank you. We're going to begin with a presentation from planning staff on behalf of the planning commission, and they are subject to cross examination, followed by a presentation by the petitioner, similarly subject to cross examination, and then finally presentation by the opposition, also subject to cross examination. We will follow that by public comment. Each public comment is limited to three minutes. We ask when you come up that you give your name and council district for the record. There will be opportunity for all three presenting parties for a five minute rebuttal and then an opportunity towards the end for a three minute summation. And then there will be opportunity for council members to ask questions of all the presenters, but not folks giving public comment, and an opportunity if there's new information that's being introduced for rebuttal. At that point, I will declare the hearing closed and the council members will deliberate amongst ourselves without asking you all questions. And then we will take a vote to either adopt findings of fact or to adopt new findings of fact by roll call vote. And then after that, we will take a vote to approve the ordinance also by roll call. All right, I believe that is it. Does anybody have any questions about the process? Okay, if not, we'll go ahead and get started. Can we get started with a presentation from the planning staff, please? Thank you. And as previously agreed, all presenting parties will have 25 minutes for their presentation. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor Wu, members of the council. My name is Tracy Wade and I am the planning manager for the division of planning and specifically the planning services section. Tonight with me is Daniel Crumb, a senior planner that deals mostly with zoning cases. And so he'll be presenting the bulk of our presentation tonight from the planning commission's recommendation. But before we get to that, I do have a number of items that we enter into the record of the hearing. And they'll be available for any of the council members to review during the course of the hearing if necessary. The first item is our affidavit of publication of the public hearing in the Herald-Leader newspaper for tonight's hearing. Second is the affidavit that I have signed swearing that we've sent notice to the properties within 500 feet of the subject property. And that came to 230 property owners within the 500 foot notice. And those were sent within the required notice time frame, which is 21 days. In addition, the staff sent two notices to neighborhood associations. Also within the 21 day notice time frame for the Bell Court Neighborhood Association and Aylesford. Next, and also at your seat tonight, is the planning commission's recommendation to the council. And that includes the two or three page recommendation. And then in addition to that, the application materials from the applicant, their justification, revised justification, staff reports, and then minutes of the public hearing from the planning commission. Also from the planning commission on the date that we held a hearing, There were exhibits entered into the record that day, a presentation from the applicant, a notebook of information from the opposition and their attorney that day. In addition, there were quite a few letters and emails that were submitted to the Planning Commission for review, both in opposition and in support of the request. And then we have, although not directly related to the comprehensive plan, It was discussed several times during the Planning Commission's hearing, so we did bring a copy of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the recently adopted goals and objectives for the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, in case we need to discuss those further, as well as the zoning ordinance that's current for tonight's hearing, the copy of the land subdivision regulations. also at your seat tonight the staff's presentation in a powerpoint and then the last thing that the council has in front of them is article 8-16 of our zoning ordinance and that is in its entirety the b1 zone which is the zone in question tonight for the subject property and it does show all of the principal uses accessory conditional and prohibited uses for that zone just so it's clear for the council members what we're discussing. With that, I will turn over the podium to, again, Daniel Crum. He's a senior planner in our office, and we'll both be here through the course of the evening to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. This is a request by 509 East Main LLC. It is a request for a zone change to rezone .485 acres of the property at 509 East Main Street. And the reason for this zone change is to modify existing conditional zoning restrictions that are property and to modify those restrictions. The applicant is seeking this proposal in order to establish a private social club use at this location. Just to orient the council to the location of subject property, it is shown in the center of the screen here in white. Just to orient ourselves, we've got, this is located on East Main Street. So as East Main heads out of town, past Midland, we have the subject property located here. Zooming in, you get a little bit better idea of the zoning in the surrounding area as well its relationship to the surrounding streets. So it is actually located at the intersection of Forest Avenue, which is a local roadway that connects to East Main Street. So it is this parcel shown in the center here. Zoning-wise, there's a kind of a large variety of zoning in the area. So we have commercial elements. So this color here is downtown transition zoning. We have professional office, and B1 that was established in the 70s and 80s consists of office uses, restaurants, other type of administrative uses as well. We also have an existing residential. So the subject property itself, prior to 1990, was zoned residentially, R4, which is this brown color. You're seeing kind of helping reinforce that main street corridor. There was a rezoning in 1990 to establish the modified B1 zone that exists today. So what we have kind of characterizing this area is a long Main Street corridor, a mixing of uses, higher intensity uses that are sort of representative of how development has kind of occurred downtown, and then is sort of anchored on both sides by kind of historic residential development. So this lighter color you see is R2 zoning. So that is the Belcourt neighborhood. And then on the opposite side of the road with this lighter brown color as well is the Aylesford neighborhood. So sort of this mixing of uses along the corridor being anchored by two historic residential communities in the vicinity. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property and getting an idea of sort of the relationship. So once again, we have the subject property outlined in yellow. The mixing of uses in the immediate vicinity, we have a residential with a restaurant use on the first floor, a mixing of offices, funeral homes, directly adjoining on both sides. We've got multifamily residential, getting into single-family residential as you move further into the Belcourt neighborhood as well as across the road within Aylesford. This hatch coloring, which is a little difficult to see on the screen currently, that is present on both sides of the road, indicates a H1 overlay. So the subject property itself is located within the Belcourt historic overlay. This has implications on how the property can be used and redeveloped. Essentially, any change in the structure, adding additional structures, demolitions, any modifications to the structure requires a historic preservation review. So that is a certificate of appropriateness in the full public hearing process for any demolitions, new constructions, et cetera. So redevelopment of the site is somewhat limited. The applicant and their proposal are planning to keep the structure as is, and so this is a rezoning that is seeking to accommodate a changing of use. So we have some images of the subject property just to give you an idea of its character and the relationship to some of the uses around it. So most recently, it was used as Crossgate Gallery. Previous to that, it was a antique, Z. Faulkner Antiques, a fraternity house, and then residential uses. So this is the view from Main Street. As I noted earlier, it is located on a corner parcel, so this is the view from Forest, looking into the rear parking areas and the rear portion of the structure. Here is the view on Main Street as you're looking and heading out of town, and the opposite view as you're heading back in, as well as a view of Forest Avenue, like I said, a local, less intense roadway. So at the time of the 1990 rezoning, there really was a collaboration at that time between the applicant that was seeking to establish the Z. Faulkner Antique Use and the Belcourt neighborhood in order to establish that commercial use on what was a residential zone, a rezoning was necessary. However, at that time, the neighborhood had reservations about the full breadth of neighborhood business uses at that location. And so the applicant at that time in the neighborhood met and came to an agreement for a proposed conditional zoning restrictions that severely limited the use of the property. So here, what was approved in 1990 limits the use of the property to the retail sale of merchandise, including fabrics, furnishings, fixtures, glassware in China, gifts, antiques and books, and dwelling units. So really this was sort of very specifically tailored to accommodate this antique use and kind of similar uses, but not to allow the great variety of uses that are normally found in the B1 zone. This is somewhat out of character with most of the conditional zoning requests that are established by council. Usually the state statute kind of dictates that these be used sparingly and sort of very targeted. So normally when you see conditional zoning, you see a prohibition on certain uses, certain uses that may be a problem based on the location, the context of the situation, but not limiting it essentially to one specific group of uses only. So usually it is far more targeted and far more precise than kind of what was established in 1990. There were several other conditions that were established that limited just sort of how the property would operate, where merchandise could be stored, parking lot screening, and signage. The applicant is proposing to keep those conditions that you see B, C, and D on screen, but the applicant is coming before you because they believe that the restrictions placed in item A here unduly limit the property and are no longer appropriate. So in order to amend conditional zoning restrictions, it's a slightly different process than a normal zoning. There's not really a conversation about the comprehensive plan or the place builder that we normally go through in an application like that. The findings required is you as a body have to find that there has been a major change of an economic, physical, or social nature in the subject property or in the area that the subject property is located. That wasn't anticipated back in 1990 when these restrictions were initially put on the property. and that substantially altered the character of the area, making those restrictions inappropriate or improper. So that is the standard that you all will be evaluating tonight. The applicant contends that there have been major economic changes that make that restriction to limit this essentially to antiques, furnishings, and the like, is no longer appropriate. So to get into the applicant's use, they are seeking this in order to establish a private club use. Private clubs are a little bit of a unique use in that it's sort of a combination of multiple uses you find in the B1 zone. So the zoning ordinance kind of defines a private club as a business or use that are organized around a social, educational, or recreational purpose for its guest or members. So this is gatherings of people organized around a particular purpose. This includes, as the operation of the use, several different types of uses that are normally included in the B1 zone. So these may have aspects of banquet facilities, gathering space, may have food and restaurant service for its members, similar to a restaurant, may include bar or cocktail lounge effects as well. This definition does also include country clubs. So a couple examples of private clubs within Lexington, the Signature Club, which is shown on the left, That was originally a private club that was organized around swimming, but also allowed its members to utilize the space for restaurant space, for meals, social space, and as well as banquet facilities. To the right, Greenbrier Country Club, which organizes meals for its members, has a bar area, banquet facilities, and the like. So the applicant is proposing a private club centered around art. So it is that gathering for that purpose. They are proposing to serve meals on site, to have alcohol service on site, and to have meeting and banquet spaces. The applicant can provide further additional information on kind of how that use is proposed to operate. But this is the use that they are seeking to establish at this location. It is not included in that list that was generated in 1990. And so the applicant is seeking to amend the conditional zoning at this location in order to accommodate this particular use. So the applicant's argument for why these conditions are no longer proper is an economic justification. The applicant contends that there have been significant changes to that very specific industries. So the antique, the furnishings, bookstores, and the like, the very limited number of uses that could be accommodated on this property. I've all sort of seen similar economic downturns since the 1990s. The applicant provides some information on decreases in some furniture stores, bookstores, and the like. The overarching trend is that in 1990, the council did not foresee the impact that Internet would have on brick-and-mortar sales, the trend towards larger sellers versus independent sellers, as well as changes in online shopping and the impact that that has on brick-and-mortar sales. So based on the information provided, the applicant has made the case that at this time it is no longer financially feasible for them to support their operations in this historic structure based on the very limited number of uses that they are currently allowed under the current zoning. So they are seeking to expand this zoning in order to accommodate the private club use as well as some similar uses in the B1 zone. Staff in the review of the economic justification found that it was sufficient to meet those criteria. As far as the applicants proposed conditional zoning restrictions, after meeting with the neighborhood and having some preliminary discussions, this is what was sent over to planning staff to review. Planning staff took a look at this, made a staff alternative recommendation that added some additional uses and clarified some of the language. But in general, staff found that they met the threshold of there being a significant change that unduly limited the use of this property and that the proposed staff alternative list, which was accepted by the Planning Commission, would be more appropriate. With regards to the development plan on the subject property, what you are seeing is what was approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting as a preliminary plan. it's not showing any changes to the structure because there are no changes to the structure. Any modifications, additions, demolitions, new construction would require historic preservation approval going through that full public process. This will, if approved by council and the zone is adopted, the applicant would still have to go through the process of a final development plan in order to establish the use on site. But it is showing the access points existing, parking areas existing off of Forest Avenue, and largely utilizing the property as previously approved, but with a new use. As far as the Planning Commission recommendation, the Planning Commission held their public hearing on October 12th. There was opposition expressed by a number of citizens. And so during that testimony, staff presented our findings based on the materials as well as the zoning ordinance. We found that there was a substantial economic change that made the existing conditional zoning no longer appropriate. The applicant described their project and their need for the zone change. And the concerns heard at the time of the rezoning hearing really centered on increases in traffic, noise, hour of operation, the kind of proximity to residential development there in Belcourt, as well as pedestrian safety. So the Planning Commission, having heard that, approved the staff alternative conditions and voted to recommend approval. Here we have a list, and there's 21 total, so we will continue on to the next screen, of the uses that would be permitted on the property. So it expands this from just antique sales and the like that were mentioned in the 1990 rezoning and opened it up to a larger number of uses that staff found appropriate within the proximity to residential. This continues on to the next page, but it really encompasses everything that the applicant was proposing, as well as several uses that were added in order to address issues in equity. B, C, and D are the same conditions that were present in the 1990 conditional zoning. So this is really just modifying the conditional zoning and the allowed uses of the property in order to accommodate and really make sure that this is a viable property. Once again, based on the way that the conditional zoning is worded, as kind of shown here, these 21 uses would be the only uses permitted on the properties. If Council wishes to add or make alterations to that list, we have provided a handout that contains the current B1 zoning, the current B1 permitted uses in normal situations for your evaluation. Staff found that these restrictions were appropriate and necessary to allow the applicant reasonable utilization of their property while still protecting the character of the Belcourt Historic Area and that Main Street corridor. As always, it was made subject to approval of the corresponding development plan and received the proper certification as required by the ordinance. So at this time, I would be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff now or later. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crump. Does the petitioner want to cross-examine? No? Thank you. Does the opposition want to cross-examine? Yes, Ms. Winters. I just have two questions. Sure. Come on up to the podium, please. Good afternoon, Council Members. I'm Jessica Winters, counsel for the objectors. I just have two questions for you. Ms. Winters, would you move closer to the mic? No, sir. This way people who are watching on LexTV and we have a record of the audio. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Crum, you were showing some pictures of the surrounding properties next to the subject property and discussing the zoning in that area. Isn't it true that the three properties that are directly adjacent to the subject property are zoned residential? I believe so. I believe R4. Isn't it true that the property to the left of the subject property is single-family residential? Let me verify that real quick for you. So the zonings of the adjoining properties, we have R4 along Main Street. So left and right to the subject property allow for multifamily residential. To the rear, we have R2, which has a single-family residence, and it's a by-right permitted use, but does allow for kind of a greater collection of uses. But, yes, single family to the rear, adjoining multifamily. Okay. And then my only other question for you, Sarah, was you were discussing the standard to be applied in this proceeding when you're seeking removal of the zoning restrictions. Isn't it true that the applicant bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence in establishing the major economic, social, or physical change? That is correct. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crum. All right, next up is presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Nicholson, welcome, you have 25 minutes. If you don't mind, go ahead and distribute to the clerk and they'll distribute to us. Thank you. Good evening, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant, 509 East Main Street. With me is members of the applicant team, Tyler Bromagen, Brian Babbage, Field Ladd, and Will Adams. Also the engineer on the project and architect, Vince Thompson. I'm going to basically have some of the applicants come up and of tell you all kind of more directly about what their vision is for this project. But first, I kind of wanted to pass out what is kind of, you know, some materials that explain kind of what their kind of vision for this club is, what the inspiration for it is, what their kind of ethos is in order to kind of get more kind of tangible information on what this is. because this has been very much kind of portrayed, unfortunately, in the media as some type of elitist country club type use. And that couldn't be further from the truth for what they're actually going from. And so I wanted to hand those out to you all, and I also wanted you all to hear from them. But this picture is kind of the reason why we are here. This is an iconic building in this town, and this building needs to be preserved. and unfortunately the current economic realities of the limited use are basically making that just not a reality. I also submitted three letters that came in kind of last minute from three of the more kind of well-known antique dealers in town, Seth Maloney from Ann Greeley Interiors and also Debbie Chamlin with Bell Mason that basically reiterate a lot of the economic arguments that you're going to hear today about how these uses just are not kind of economically viable kind of post, well, post a lot of different periods that we have gone through in the past couple years since 1990. So with that being said, I want to go ahead and bring up Field Ladd, who basically can give you more of an understanding for his experience with this building because he has resided there for, what, almost two decades? Good evening. My family, my father, mother, and sister, we owned, lived, and operated in this building. My parents bought it in 1998 when I was 17. Spent a couple years there and have returned every year since for holidays, and I started working there in 2007. To me, this building is a bit of family legacy. It's a building that we all care dearly for. When a succession plan was begun to be put in place with my father, to keep the doors open on this building, we had started going to Florida for three months in the winter, to New York for one month in the summer, doing pop-up shows. Essentially, walk-in traffic, drive-in traffic had started to wane a little bit. And so we've done what we've had to do to keep the doors open. And in sort of a review, we went through it as a family and we decided to move to Old Vine. We rented, we've got a lease on what used to be Phil Duns and Old Vine. And essentially, the true reason for all of this and for my involvement in this project is to preserve the building, to keep it the jewel that I think, I believe it is. And it wasn't economically feasible to do just operating a gallery. I would say we work as hard as anybody. I know my father does. And so it's been many years. And when he had my mother there working and they lived behind, there's residents upstairs. It was possible, but with essentially the internet. And all of this is everything is out in the open now. People buy from auction. We have taken on a new endeavor. It's our 11th year with Keeneland doing an art auction. So each year we kind of added a little bit to the plate to keep the doors open. And as my father gets a little bit older and wants to slow down, just to keep the doors open, we thought that we needed to bring somebody else in and have maybe a more innovative use and something that could sustain us economically. And so our idea behind the club is, for me, a place in the center of town where people can come gather, meet someone different. I'm a big believer that a lot of people from outside of Lexington think Lexington's great, but the people can be a little bit closed off. So our goal is to provide a place where I think we can all kind of learn, grow, meet new people, watch a ball game, have a speaker, have an author come. The things that we would like to do are endless. But I do appreciate your all's time. I want you to know that the building and the Belcourt neighborhood, I'm not sure that are important to me. My children go to school, went to school at Good Shepherd. While I don't attend often, I am a parishioner there. Like I said, I taught my child to ride his bike on Belcourt. It is incredibly important, and I think you'll see as we go through this that we have tried to take every step that we can to make it as little negative impact on the neighborhood. And I think that maybe we'll come to find out that it'll actually have a bit of a positive impact in the future. So thank you for your time. This is Tyler Bromagin, one of my partners. Hi, my name's Tyler Bromagin, and I'm the managing partner of the 509 team. As many of you know, the 509 East Main Street is an impressive structure with the history to match. It's one of the most beautiful buildings on Main Street and a one-of-a-kind asset that needs to be protected and preserved to the benefit of our community. This also may be the most deed-restricted property in all of Lexington, unconscionably so, and the massive shift to online shopping could not have been anticipated three decades ago. Even Z. Faulkner in the 1990 meeting said that outside of her specific use, it would not be a good investment. This is prior to the internet boom, the great recession, the pandemic, and the significant inflation we've seen over the last few years. Materially, the Planning Commission and staff made it clear, this fundamental and systemic economic change has negatively impacted the function of the property to the point that it is no longer sustainable under the current restrictions. No emotional argument will change that basic fact. In the planning and zoning meeting, we've already heard from local retail business owners about how difficult it is to continue operations in this current environment. The advent of the Internet and the systemic shift to online shopping is an economic change that was not anticipated. Bottom line, the building can no longer be sustained under the current restrictions, and we cannot allow it to fall into disrepair. We intend to restore and preserve this incredible building on Main Street, a highly visible and trafficked corridor by creating a new type of multi-purpose space. Aimed at promoting and supporting art as well as educating and fostering culture in our community, this infill project is in line with the city comprehensive plan and allows the property to generate enough income to maintain a historic commercial building like this. Our vision for the property also carries forward the tenants of Crossgate Gallery. In addition to art exhibitions highlighting local artists, this will be a place for people to co-work, socialize, and relax in an upscale atmosphere. We would like to host talks, lecture series, book clubs, supper clubs, and other social and community oriented events to foster creativity and ideas. We aim to build an inclusive membership community open to all people of all color, creed, sexual orientation, and backgrounds. We will actively work to foster an environment for open dialogue and understanding. To that point, we have been listening. Early in our planning stages, we actively sought feedback from friends and family and reached out to minority groups around town, and the response was overwhelming. While we heard a lot of concerns and adapted accordingly, we've been able to raise over a million dollars from local investors to fund the restoration and preservation of the old Crossgate Gallery building. We are incredibly lucky to have a multitude of Lexingtonians throughout our community on our investment team, and all of us behind this project are committed to the long term vision for this historic building. Our intentions are for shared benefit. While this is a commercial venture, we are not motivated solely by profit, especially at the expense of our community. We have done our best to address legitimate neighborhood concerns like parking, noise, and traffic. Unfortunately, misinformation has been spread across the neighborhood. We've been excluded from meetings, and there was a concentrated effort on social media to portray us in a bad light. This is a strong example of how nimbyism and the spread of misinformation on social media can negatively impact our society. While there are always some who fight any change and want to maintain the status quo, please don't condemn us based on outlandish and irrational fears from a vocal few. We hope the council can see what we envision for this building and our community. The only fact that matters here is there has been a significant economic change that was not anticipated, and the current deed restrictions are no longer feasible. Lexington is a community that is for preserving historic structures and for redevelopment infill projects. Let us continue this tradition, and also, let's show that we are a community for entrepreneurial innovation. I hope you will vote in support of us today and help us preserve this historic building. Thank you very much. Last month, the Urban County Planning Commission voted to remove the restrictions following the recommendations of the Planning Staff Committee. Today, Mr. Crum demonstrated that there's been a significant economic shift that warrants removing these narrow deed restrictions on 509 East Main. I agree with the results of the vote and Mr. Crum's argument, So rather than reiterating these points, I'd like to address some of the concerns you may be hearing from those who disagree with the outcome of the October vote. I'd like to clarify who we are. My name is Caroline Bromagen. This is Annie. She had to come to work with me tonight, and she's been pretty quiet. I'm an owner and investor in 509 East Main. Tyler Bromagen, Brian Babbage, Phil Glad, and Will Ryan are all born, raised, and still live and work in Lexington. Lexington is home to all of us and we are not outsiders. We love Lexington and we're active participants in the community. We're not a large corporation either. Tyler and I own two commercial properties, 509 East Main and another historic building in downtown Frankfort that we are preserving with the assistance of a grant from the National Park Service. Our goal with both projects is to not turn these communities into our commodity. Rather, we want to restore and maintain these historic properties with businesses that enhance the communities they serve. Secondly, I'd like to explain what our project is and what it is not. We can, I'm sorry. Sorry. I'm sorry, I'd like to start the sentence over again. Secondly, I'd like to explain where our project is and what it is not. We considered several different business plans and ultimately felt that an art based social club would not only honor the heritage of the building, but also allow a place for those with a common interest in culture and community to co-work, network, celebrate the BBN, and enjoy special events. Those opposed to the project say we are opening a party house, a nightclub, a men's club, a strip club, and a frat boy club. That is simply not true. I particularly take great offense to this misrepresentation. As a mother of two daughters and as a female business owner, I would not support this project if I felt that women were being excluded or objectified. The neighborhood knows that we are not building a party house, and yet they continue to perpetuate this false narrative in their op-eds, social media, and pleas to the community to fight our project. Additionally, I'd like to address the perception of lack of engagement with the neighborhood. We've met with neighbors individually, invited them into the building to tour and hear our business plan. We've hosted three meetings open to anyone who wanted to attend. We've gone door to door to speak with neighbors. Despite these attempts, a vocal group of neighbors have said that we have not engaged enough with them, and they've even spread misinformation about our project. It is difficult to effectively engage with the neighborhood when they are not open to receiving our communication. They say that we are not listening to them, when in reality we have taken their concerns and have made material changes to our development plan. The neighborhood asked for parking. We have secured four lots with over 100 spots, and we have proposed issuing permits for our members to prevent parking on forests. the neighborhood asked us to address address potential noise we've added noise barriers to our development plan and adjusted the hours of operation both inside and outside the neighborhood asked how this project could benefit them we've opened the doors to them and offered our building for them to host events the neighborhood asked us to limit proposed uses for the building we did so and dramatically reduced the b1 uses we've been listening and we want to be good neighbors on that note we will remain neighbors regardless of the vote today thank you for your time our project will be a place to gather with friends new and old and to celebrate what makes lexington special a place where everyone can belong i will try to move more quickly than i am used to doing uh but i think that that laid a very very good foundation for all of the dialogue that has kind of been around this project and what we aspire this project to be and what we do not aspire this project to be. There have been kind of three or four different areas of concern that we have heard from the neighborhood. Parking has been first and foremost, and it's actually one of the kind of main reasons that a kind of private club aspect or model kind of took it, took kind of, you know, hold of this project. We knew that parking becomes an issue when Good Shepherd is having any type of wedding, when any type of event is occurring at the Bell House. And so we needed a way to control where people could park. And the only way we could kind of think about doing that is by making it a membership kind of private restriction where you can put or require stickers on cars, where you can put fines in the bylaws and anything in order to make sure that you have to park in these different areas that we've secured kind of joint parking agreements. We also tried to go on different sides of Main Street in order to make sure that no matter what is going on, you would have ample places to park. If there was an event occurring at some of these locations, there would always be ample parking that is available. I do believe we're only anticipating on a good day, 40 to 60 kind of car trips a day. And so we do believe that we have more than adequate amount of parking on-site and off-site and on both sides of Main Street. And one of the reasons that we wanted to get both sides of Main Street are the needed pedestrian improvements. Traffic engineering has already approved these plans, and we're waiting on basically the state approval to add pedestrian crosswalks, pedestrian infrastructure, kind of all along this area in order to make sure that this is truly a safe pedestrian place. We also agreed to make sure that rideshares are only dropping off on property, not on Forest Avenue. We put a specific note on our development plan that is binding on this property going forward. You would require another public hearing to change these hours of operations, regardless of what use kind of goes forward if this were to fail. Conditional zoning restrictions don't really allow for this level of detail, And so we wanted to make sure to put it specifically on the development plan in writing in order to make sure that this isn't something that could simply just fall off. The weekday hours are less than what the Bell House currently allows today. We also put a restriction on there that that is no outdoor speakers. It was a typo on our development plan that will get fixed. Our government can do a whole lot, but I don't know about outdoor speaking in general. It could be prohibited. And so that will get cleaned up. Again, this is the kind of niche industry that we are talking about changing. There's a substantial amount of information that has been put in the record that the Planning Commission reviewed. Daniel Crum already kind of hit at some of those informations. And since we're running short on time, I'm not going to dwell too much. But I don't think any of this is going to come to a surprise to you all. The antiques market has declined roughly 80 percent in the past 20 years. There's been a 45 to 70 percent drop in the antiquities market in the last 15 years. Brick and mortar bookstores, both corporate and independent, have been decimated over the past 30 years. That's kind of highlighted by Barnes and Millers, but unfortunately the local folks are feeling it even more. The heaviest decline in both furniture and home furnishing retail locations occurred between 2005 and 2010, and that was already after a drop of 12 percent since the peak. which happened in 1988 to 1991. The exact time period of when this restriction got put in place tended to actually be the peak of the furnishing industries. But we've also seen a local decline. This is just kind of a snapshot from the Bureau of Economic Analysis for Fayette County on compensation of the employees. So this is the furniture, home furnishing stores mine. this is the clothing and accessory stores and so you can see this is a straight downward trajectory and this just looks at 2001 to 2021 i was not able to get back all the way to 1990 if you need more proof you just have to look at this exact parcel z antiques z faulkner antiques who got the zone change in place didn't last a decade the labs are here you've already heard from Field, but I'm sure you might hear from some of the others that talk about how this was not economically viable moving forward in the long run. Let's see. This corridor has also heavily been commercialized. You are looking all around. You see every single type of commercial zone you really can think of. You have industrial, you have warehousing, you have mixed use, You have downtown zoning. You have warehouse zoning. You have R4, R3, P1. This is a vibrant mixed use type corridor. Here are all the properties just surrounding us that can do every single thing we are talking about doing today. Every single one of the conditional zoning restrictions are allowed on all of these properties, all around this place. The neighborhood has stood strong. They have not been impacted by this rash of commercialization. I highlighted basically our property and the one directly across the street, which I believe is the justice property. These are the only two with conditional zoning restrictions whatsoever. And the justice property could do everything we're here talking about today. Here are the kind of basically all of the commercially zoned properties that are in between here. And basically kind of, you know, this picture unfortunately only kind of goes to Broadway. But essentially you are looking at a substantial amount of commercial properties. And again, every single one of these uses can occur here. Here's a list of B1 properties within historic overlays. To the left are the ones that actually have conditional zoning restrictions. To the right are all the ones that don't. The historic districts have been just fine, having completely unrestricted B1 zoning. This will still be the most heavily restricted property in all of Lexington. Here are the car trips that you are seeing. Again, I think I told you all already earlier that you're looking at kind of 40 to 60 car trips. That is two-tenths of a percent of what occurs in this area today. Here are the kind of floor plans, just to give you all an update. These are in that packet that I kind of distributed out to see that this is not a heavily intense place. This is not a place where we're trying to fit 300-type seatings for restaurants. This is meant to be a multi-use place where we're focusing on entertainment, co-working, lecture series, art galleries, just utilizing this space as it's already been utilized today, but allowing basically more people to experience this very area. And again, this is kind of more of the co-working space that is designed. We are thinking that the monthly membership of this costs about the exact same as what the Awesome Inc. costs to reserve a space. We're not trying to price anybody out of this type of use. We're trying to offer a different space in the co-working environment in order to make sure that we're able to at least be able to enjoy this type of property. are the conditional zoning restrictions that the planning commission proposed. I personally think that there's not a neighborhood in town that could not handle this type of neighborhood business. Again, it would be one of the most restricted that there is in all of Lexington. As a north side resident in a historic area, I look at that as a dream list, quite frankly. There are probably more that I would add on there. And so I think it might have been some of the issues that I have had on some of this neighborhood opposition that we have received, because this is so incredibly heavily restricted in favor of the neighborhood. We kept just doing the permitted uses instead of listing out the prohibited uses, which is what you all usually see with conditional zoning restrictions, because we wanted to make it incredibly clear for the neighborhood going forward, if this does fail, this is all the types of uses that you would be looking at. With regards to substantial changes of the social kind of nature, the only thing you can really look for in that regards is our comprehensive plan. Because our comprehensive plan since 1990 has changed with our society, has changed with what we want our society to be and how we want projects to come online. And you can't say that this project is not entirely about increasing the viability of an underutilized infill project that is a mixed-use structure on one of our major corridors. That reads like it's straight out of Place Builder and straight out of the language for desired development in our comprehensive plan. It's located on a major transportation corridor. It's utilizing shared parking. We're encouraging multimodal transportation. transportation we're encouraging ride sharing operations at the end of the day all we are trying to get you all to recognize is that this restriction is untenable moving forward it still will be the most restricted property it still will be the most restricted property in this area it will still be the most restricted business use adjacent to bell court and so we I think it is certainly reasonable to go ahead and recognize the changes in our economic reality. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Would the planning staff like to cross-examine the presenter? No, thank you. Would the opposition like to cross-examine the petitioner? No, thank you. All right, let's do presentation from the opposition, Ms. Winters, please. And you'll have 25 minutes and if you have any late comers, do you have any late comers that need to be sworn in? No, both of our experts are here, Vice Mayor. Okay, perfect, thank you. I just want to make sure my PowerPoint's pulled up before my time begins here. Let me, there it is. Okay, great. Good evening, council members. My name is Jessica Winters. I'm an attorney and I live at 421 West Second Street in the first district. I'm here today representing the Belcourt Neighborhood Association to present its objection to the proposed removal of B1 zoning restrictions for the property located at 509 East Main Street. We've submitted and provided the council with written copies of a position statement with supporting attachments. Those attachments include full expert reports for both an economist and a real estate professional, which will be presented to you by me today. I request that these materials be made a part of the official administrative record in this matter. A copy of the materials is with the clerk and available for the council's reference if needed during the hearing. At your places are the proposed findings submitted by the neighborhood and also an alternative proposed finding that I will discuss with you in my summation later on this evening. I'm sure most of you are familiar with Belcourt and I know others tonight will be providing you with additional details about the Belcourt Neighborhood Association's activities and the impact this proposed change will have on the neighborhood during public comment. So I'm just going to highlight a few items that are important with regard to the legal issue before you. Important here is the fact that Bell Court sought and obtained an H1 overlay in 1990 to protect historic properties within its boundaries from demolition. And to ensure that the area would remain predominantly residential by preventing it from being absorbed into the commercial uses emanating from the downtown corridor. Commercial properties are included and protected in H1 overlays. The subject property before you this evening is the only B1 property in the Belcourt overlay. It is a keystone property at the entrance to Belcourt's residential court. As you are all well aware from your consideration of other zoning matters, in predominantly residential neighborhoods, buffering zones and uses are necessary to provide a transition between residential properties and more intense commercial uses. The subject property with its existing B1 use restrictions creates such a buffer for the historic Belcourt neighborhood. Removal of the restrictions would eliminate this buffer and expose the residential neighbors directly adjacent to the subject property to intense commercial uses that are inappropriate for the property's location. The perimeters of neighborhoods are just as important as their centers for Keeping full time residents in historic areas and keeping them investing in, living in full time and maintaining those historic properties. Just for some context, neighborhoods adjacent to the Bell Court neighborhood include Aylesford Place, East End Kenwick, Mentel, Ashland, the downtown Lexington area, and Gratz Park. The property and the neighborhood are surrounded by other historic neighborhoods. It should be noted for the purposes of the council's consideration this evening that the LFUCG central business district stops before this corridor that you're considering this evening. As a result, the portion of East Main Street in consideration should not include reference to zoning in the downtown area, which is an entirely different district. Tonight, the council is asked to serve in a quasi judicial role. To answer the legal question of whether the applicant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a major change of an economic, physical, or social nature that was not anticipated at the time the binding restrictions for 509 East Main were imposed. That has substantially altered the basic character of the area, making the restrictions inappropriate or improper. The starting point for considering whether there has been a major change that could not have been anticipated when the restrictions were put in place, is an examination of the purposes for which the restrictions were placed to begin with. 509 East Main was built as a single family residence and was zoned residential until 1990, when then owner Z Faulkner sought his own change to B1 to allow her to operate an antiques business. I've described the 1990 zone change process in detail in the position statement submitted by the neighborhood. And minutes from those meetings are included in the official record copy of that position statement. To summarize, at that time, the applicant, the neighborhood, the planning staff, and the council were all in agreement that an unrestricted B1 use was not appropriate for this property. The restrictions that are currently in place were carefully crafted to preserve the integrity of the Belcourt residential neighborhood by creating a buffering commercial use that would also promote the restoration and preservation of the structure. The following factors were key to the consideration of the zone change in 1990. First, it was considered that this property is very close to neighboring homes. It is bounded on three sides by residential properties. Second, it was considered that the property had continued viability as a residential use. Third, it was considered that the property is located at the entrance to Belcourt. And fourth, it was considered that the property was included within the Belcourt H1 overlay. In 1990, it was noted that East Main Street was home to mixed residential and commercial uses and that maintaining the balance of these uses was key to the analysis. Each of these factors supporting the imposition of the binding restrictions remains as true today as it was in 1990. There has been no major change and certainly no change that could not have been anticipated at the time along this corridor. In 1990, these considerations that I've just outlined led to a vote approving the requested B1 zone change, subject to the following restrictions. That the use of the property be limited to only the sale of fabrics, furnishings, fixtures, glassware in China, gifts, antiques and books, and dwelling units. The zone change would not have been approved without the imposition of these carefully tailored restrictions. Since 1990, there have been no major physical or social changes in this area that have substantially altered the basic character of the area or the subject property. The applicant does not make any argument that there have been such changes. Instead, the applicant focuses on economic changes and cites to a number of newspaper articles to try to demonstrate economic change. The zoning ordinance is not concerned with economic changes in other places. The applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there have been major economic changes that have substantially altered the basic character of the immediate area. The mix of commercial and residential uses along East Main Street has not substantially changed since 1990. This directly supports a conclusion that there has not been a major change of a physical or economic nature in the vicinity of the property since the restrictions were imposed. For instance, let's take a look at the Justice property, which is right across the street. Justice has been at this location since well before 1990. This property is owned P1 with a binding restriction requiring residential units. Wellington Arms and the Woodlands similarly have been at these locations for decades and residential and retail spaces. The subject property with the current binding restrictions in place houses residential and commercial mixed use along this east main corridor. That is the current use of the property. The conditional zoning restriction permits the use of the subject property as dwelling units. As the council can see from this slide, the applicant's property is surrounded on three sides by residential zoning. That is several properties deep and wide. This has been true since 1990 and has not changed. These properties are occupied, well maintained, and commercially viable as dwelling units. In addition, the businesses along the East Main Corridor demonstrate that the uses and the categories that are currently permitted at the property remain viable. Other design firms on East Main Street include Schnabel Interiors, which has been operating at 512 East Main Street since 2003 and is zoned P1. Ann Greeley Interiors, which has been operating at 497 East Main Street since 1996 and is zoned B2A. Thoroughbred Antique Gallery, which has been operating at 637 East Main Street since 2021 and has a restricted B1 use. Matthew Carter Designs, which has been operating at 115 Clay Avenue since 2006 and has a restricted B1 use. Use restrictions are in fact prevalent along the east main corridor, which reflects the fact that this is a sensitive area in which residential uses are closely related to commercial uses. And are thus in need of protective zoning to serve as a buffer to the more intensive uses of the downtown core. Nearby, Walton Avenue, National Avenue, and Liberty Road are part of a thriving and expanding interiors and design district. The uses permitted by the current restrictions fit perfectly within this category. The fact that this district continues to grow with several new businesses opened in the past two years, indicates that these uses remain economically viable. We should also take a look at 509 East Main. The Crossgate Gallery operated in this property successfully for 25 years. This business still exists, although it has moved locations. The neighborhood has submitted with its materials a December 2022 Herald-Leader article in which the gallery owner indicates that the reason the business relocated was to access additional gallery space. In fact, just today the Lane Report announced that the Crossgate's annual Keeneland collaboration brought in $2.8 million, with 88% of work sold. The art market is strong in Lexington. The restrictions imposed in 1990 remain viable and are an important means for providing both residential and unique retail space. I would now like to call Dr. Darshak Patel, who is an economics expert, whose report is included in our materials to testify. Dr. Patel, can you please briefly describe your education and experience as an expert in the field of economics? Sure, my name is Darshak Patel. I'm a faculty member in economics at the University of Kentucky. I received my PhD at the University of Kentucky in 2011 as well. I've been a faculty member over 10 years at different institutions and I've done a lot of work with MBA students. And done some consulting work with local businesses and have plenty of peer-reviewed articles. Can you please tell the council what work you were engaged to perform on behalf of Belcourt neighborhood? Sure, I was asked to evaluate the proposed zoning change for property 509 East Main Street that was seeking approval, removing of zoning instructions for specific uses restricted since 1990. Can you tell the council what materials you reviewed and reaching your opinions? I had the BCNA position statement, the Bell's Court outline with lots of attachments, especially the art research attachments, profit and loss statements, snapshots on that, the applicant's statement as well and then some real estate market analysis. Did your work result in the generation of an expert report? Yes. And is that expert report attached to Belcourt's position statement? It is. What is your opinion about the economic analysis that is necessary to support the applicant's position that there has been a major economic change with regard to the allowable uses that justifies removal of the zoning restrictions? From the information that was gathered to me and then also provided from the application, it showed that the specific uses, the local market information wasn't specifically used. A lot of articles were shared, national trends were shared. I saw a couple of local slides just earlier right now, but a lot of general trends were shared, national trends were shared that were generalized to apply for the locality of the Fayette County or the Lexington Market. And that doesn't provide strong argument for the cause of changing the restriction zoning. Did you see an economic viability study with the applicants materials? And can you explain to the council what an economic viability study is? So there was no economic viability study and that goes against, that was what I was trying to talk about in terms of the generalization of the national trend. A total market analysis was needed. With that, if you define for specific uses the actual market, with a targeted market, you can then collect information on the market demand, the market trends. You can combine that information with consumer demographics and also gather information on the local macroeconomic indicators to decide on whether those specific uses would be successful. And you can financially forecast about the success of those specific uses. What's your opinion regarding the allowable use relating to the sale of arts and gifts that's currently in place at the property? I believe there was some research associated and attached to the outline, to the position statement as well, that shows that it is thriving and it is economic viable. And I believe that the applicant did not also share much information on the gifts aspect, and the gifts information was also attached in terms of economic viability. What did you conclude regarding whether the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that there has been a major economic shift relative to the allowable uses in the Lexington market since 1990? Again, just going back to my previous comment, the information that was provided did not support, that was basically generalizing a national trend into the local market, and that is a very strong generalization. A more specific argument would be to provide information and evidence for the local market, especially Fayette or Lexington in general. Did you also analyze the feasibility of the proposed use of the subject property as a private club? Yes, I did. And what did you conclude? Also, there is a profit and loss snapshot provided with the help of a local entrepreneur in the hospitality industry that helped provide some forecast on these numbers. Even with 300 members, it was not profitable, but even with 500 members, it was very minutely profitable. Okay. Does your expert report contain additional facts and references supportive of your testimony? Yeah, it's plenty in detail in my report. Due to time restriction, I'm sticking as short as possible. Thank you, Dr. Patel. I would now like to call Daniel Elkinson, a real estate expert, whose report is included in our materials to testify good afternoon mr elkinson can you please briefly describe your education and experience as an expert in the field of real estate i'm a licensed real estate agent for 11 years with a focus in downtown north side ashland park kenwick chevy chase i currently work at the brokerage real estate advisors i have years of experience doing residential transactions primarily single family residents and condos and townhomes i also have some experience in the commercial market with regards to retail and office space can you please tell the council what work you were engaged to perform on behalf of the bell court neighborhood sure i was asked to conduct a cma a comparative market analysis which is very common in real estate just to reflect average sales prices for mixed-use properties such as the applicant's property i also looked at rental rates for condominiums and commercial properties in the vicinity of the subject property did your work result in the generation of an expert report yes it did and is that expert report attached to the bell court neighborhood position statement yes is the market data you relied upon attached as an exhibit to your report it is and what did you conclude regarding the residential portion of the property i'm glad to see you have some some notes up there the residential portion of the property which has an address of 110 forest that's actually it's the same building there are two different addresses for the property 110 is the residential side this part of the property according to the pva is approximately 4 795 square feet with a pva assigned value of 1.381 million dollars one idea that i had for for this portion of the property was that it could be divided into six condos, approximately 800 square feet each. Condos in this vicinity are selling currently between $275 to $300 a square foot. Therefore, I concluded that if the applicant condoed the residential portion of the property, they might be able to sell each for between $240,000 to $260,000 or a total of 1.5 million dollars alternatively i looked at rental rates and calculated that again this is six condos you could play around with the numbers and do four or that the rental rates between fifteen hundred and two thousand dollars per month for condos could generate between nine thousand and twelve thousand dollars per month or up to 144 000 a year for the residential side you know i'm sure as a lot of you know we're seeing a lot of development in the condo market and just a need for housing and so in my opinion it seems like this would be a perfect use for the property okay what did you conclude about the commercial portion of the property based on your research the commercial portion of the property is approximately 4493 square feet it shows a pva value of just under 1.3 million i looked at rates for retail spaces in 40508 and 40502 using a median rental income rate of approximately $25 per square foot per month. The commercial portion of the property, I think which is the downstairs, could potentially generate in the ballpark of $9,360 per month or $112,000 annually. Based on your analysis, what is a possible monthly economic return on the property with the current use restrictions in place? I think without changing anything, like examples that we've seen in other neighborhoods in the city, there could be a nice mixed-use space with some form of commercial downstairs and residential units upstairs generating in the neighborhood of $20,000 a month. And what did you conclude about whether the applicant has established a major economic change with regard to the allowable uses of the property based on your market research? i i can only speak to the real estate trends and i'm sure everyone's been paying attention i mean they're significant medium prices are significantly increased where a shortage of inventory i mean economically i would say the real estate market is is as strong as it's been or stronger significantly so in my opinion the applicant has not established that there's been an economic change to the real estate market and that there would not be any need for a zone change. In this case, a mixed-use residential and commercial also seems to fit perfectly in with the Imagine-Lex, the type of uses that we're striving for as a community. Thank you, Mr. Elkinson. You're welcome. I have just a couple minutes left here and I wanted to conclude by calling to the City Council's attention that there has been recent title research performed on the subject property that has revealed that the The initial deeds and plots for the property contain a restrictive covenant stating that the property is not ever to be used for any business purpose whatsoever. The deed further states that all further deeds will contain a restrictive covenant to this effect. The chain of title for transfers occurring after 1906 has been analyzed and each such deed contains language that the conveyance is specifically subject to and restricted by the binding covenants contained in the initial deed. In fact, the deed conveying the subject property to the applicant states that the conveyance is made subject to restrictions of record for the property. These deeds are attached to our position statement for your reference. The position statement also includes citation to legal authorities supporting the conclusion that these restrictions are enforceable and that they trump zoning regulations. Enforcement of these restrictions will be a civil legal matter, but the council should note that the current process may be muted by that outcome down the road. What matters and what is required for the purpose of this hearing and your decision today has not been established. The applicant has not met their preponderance of the evidence burden of demonstrating that the current zoning is not appropriate. The standard in our zoning ordinance is not meant to allow for the removal of zoning restrictions simply because a property owner believes that they can make more money. Or that they can make a property more valuable with a broader range of uses. The restrictions are placed there after a detailed public engagement and they're there for a reason. Our standard in our zoning ordinance is more robust. The applicant purchased the property with the restrictions in place. And the Belcourt neighborhood is a unique and historic neighborhood that is worthy of continued protection. This will still be a mixed use project on a major corridor with the current restrictions in place. There can still be a commercial use and a dwelling use. Please vote no on the requested change. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Winters. Does staff have any rebuttal, or I mean cross examination, excuse me. petitioner have cross-examination? Yes, just for the expert witnesses. Okay. Which one? Either one wants to start. It will not take long. Dr. Patel, on your reported list, your address is 222 Midland Avenue. Is that your home? Yeah, that's correct. Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Nicholson, will you direct towards the mic a little bit? That way we have it on record. That's in close proximity to the property, right? That's correct. Just about 1,600 feet as the crow flies. It looks like in your report you just reviewed the submitted documents from Belcourt that you stated in your letter. Right. Did you review the record before the Planning Commission? No. Did you read the minutes before the Planning Commission? No. Did you read any of the letters from the local retailers that were talking about the economic realities? That was not on my report. Okay. You didn't run an economic feasibility study for your report, did you? No, I was passing that proof of burden on the applicant. So you cannot claim, or you do not claim you're an expert on fabrics? Not on running the business. Yes. Do you, like not, you're not an expert on how the economic reality of furnishings are today? Not in Lexington or in Fayette County. Okay. And not pretty much any of the listed items to make that quicker. No. But it basically was, you believe that the applicant did not provide enough information to meet your opinion that it's economically justified. Correct. of generalizing the national trend to lexington lexington is not kentucky kentucky market is different from united states united states markets different from global market and you did not read the letters from local retailers or their testimony i did not have okay that is all i have um i'll try to be just as quick um you own the property at 525 22 sar correct that is accurate and that is directly behind this property that is accurate and so in determining the six condos um approximately 800 square feet did you just take the 4795 square feet listed on the pva um i'm sorry i don't understand your question so when you got six condos for 800 square feet where did you come to those i just did simple division okay you didn't inspect the property i've not inspected okay you didn't look at any physical obstacles that could be uh getting various required features to get different condo units in a floor plan sure no i understand where you're going and i think that um obviously there would be costs involved with converting it into condominiums just like there would be costs involved in converting it into a social club and so you so you did not look at the cost of conversion in any way shape or form no sir okay uh so what i was looking at was just simple data correct yeah so your profitability is not related on the cost to convert any of these condos to create these condos to take an existing single family resident turn into a multifamily i'm just saying what the property uh could be in terms of its real estate value okay correct uh so you know that b1 in the b1 zone dwelling units are only allowed to be on the second floor okay and so for you did not look at any of the ADA compliance requirements to have multifamily units on second floors in your analysis? I did not look at any ADA requirements. I calculated the first floor as being commercial and then the upper floors as being residential. Okay. Now looking at your kind of the list of your comparables, looks like you chose four commercial spaces kind of in the area that are capable of doing retail sales. is that fair sure so uh i actually had a business partner and associate uh who specializes in commercial run the commercial for me because it's not my specialty okay but yes that's correct there are four spaces on our list i mean you didn't look at any historic structures that's correct um you can look at your report yeah let me just look at the list um um yeah you know i'm not positive i think 656 east maine might be a historic structure it is not but it is okay are you moving in the direction of the cost involved with renovating old buildings because i am familiar with it asking you know what went into this report um in this specific data yes so you chose four centers that are mostly commercial shopping centers these these were the the four that yes yes these are the four that were shared with me by my commercial partner and you did not let's say focus on the size of the unit and determining rent uh no of course yeah you have to look at the size i mean that's how we calculate commercial rents based on the size of the property based on them would you agree that commercial uses um in different size based on 118 square feet versus 47 000 square feet are priced differently 4 700 yes 4 700 excuse me yeah sure uh commercial values can change significantly based on a number of factors sure um and on this days on market it says 270 median days on market that means that they all four of these have been vacant for 270 days or at least median i i think that that would be a median representation of commercial spaces the days on the market that they're listed that's correct and did you investigate the zoning on any of these four properties and whether they were in a restricted b1 zone no okay so these and i can i can tell you and give you and show you all of these are in b1 properties straight up not restricted sure would that impact your opinion in any way on what people are willing to pay rent what you're able to do in property right That's a good question. I would have to think about that. Very good. No more questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. At this time, let's go ahead and take a quick break and reconvene precisely at 7 p.m. Thank you all very much. ¶¶ Thank you. should we wait or proceed sorry huh good to go okay all right thank you all very much for your patience uh we're going to start with public comment i think we had a couple people who hadn't been sworn in yet if you all raise your right hands for me do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true and to the best of your knowledge thank you very much appreciate it all right so when i call your You're going to come up to the podium, give your name again for the record, and also tell us your council district. We're starting things off with Field Ladd, and is Laura Ladd here also? Yes. Okay, and you're giving your time to Field? Is that correct? I was unaware of this, but I do have something I want to read to you guys, because I know you guys get 1,000 papers thrown at you before one of these. So I wanted to, I spent the time in the car re-listening to planning and zoning. And I just, there were a couple things that really stuck out to me. Sure, that's fine. Would you mind beginning with your name and council district? Sorry, Field Ladd, 361 Queensway. Thank you. One of the investors on this project. As you guys know, it was six to two. And of the six of the two, even the two that voted against us, I'm going to quote from both of them. One was Zach Davis, who said that he thought, it's an extraordinarily restrictive zone put on the subject property in 1990. However, understand why it was put there. I think the applicants are proposing is very intriguing and could be of tremendous value to Lexington. That's one that was against us and the other was I'm on the fence with this particular application. This was Commissioner Meyer. I think it's a good project. I think it's interesting. And then the rest of them were for us. Commissioner Nickel called it unreasonable. Mickler, Commissioner Mickler says he has never seen a zone this restrictive in his time on commission. It's the most restrictive that he's ever seen. Every single one of them I've highlighted, they all said the same thing. And essentially, I just want to reiterate, I'm sure they have very smart people looking at this. I'm on the macro level. I'm on the Lexington level. I've talked with everybody. Times are tight. You work twice as hard. You make half as much money. To say that the building that we moved into, that it was set for more space, it's half the size of the building we used to be in. what we're doing is uh is an attempt to keep the space viable and i appreciate your time thank you very much next up is marcy deaton and followed by becca braultz yes ma'am um you had yielded your time to field right no i didn't yield my time no not you go ahead please okay um i'm marcy deaton i my family has lived directly behind crossgate for 15 years and i want to point out that in all of the other images that have been shown by the applicant and others they always show crossgate building they don't show how close it really is to the rest of our homes so i want to show you that that's my house right there on the left it's my driveway and you can also see from this image how very narrow and small their back parking lot is you can see the garage comes out and that's where one of their patios will be you can see apartments in the back can you go to the next one please this is a closer up view I know we've seen a lot of these plats but on this one I put ours where there's all residential and And the things that we're worried about, because I'm speaking for myself because I live so close, but for everyone else who surrounds it, as you can see, it is surrounded. Crossgate's embedded. It's not just on the edge of Belcourt. It's completely surrounded. There's nowhere in that parking lot they can put a commercial trash can. There's no way that they can vent a commercial kitchen out that back, that it's not going to be right in one of our backyards. Next one, please. This is the view from my bedroom window. You can see how close we really are. I included this so that you can also see to the left the white smaller building that is three or four apartments also closer than my home. So as I speak for all the residents that surround 509 we have no doubt that if this zone change is approved we will all be impacted by noise lighting parking uber drop-offs beverage truck deliveries smoking the trash the kitchen odors all of those are part of operating a restaurant and bar even if it was a public restaurant and bar doesn't matter that's a private club these things will come if this is approved and we will be right there by it I want to focus on noise because no one has brought that up very very much I'm concerned about the increase in noise especially on weekends cross gate closed at five o'clock was open half a day on saturday it was not open on sunday or monday whatever goes in here even if it's not this private club if it's a public restaurant and bar will be open until midnight right there by eight or nine of us that surround it when we asked them at one of the meetings they had with us about the sound barriers that they propose and it's in their plan, they don't really have a plan. They said, oh, well, it says sound barrier. Somebody in Bell Court asked them what kind of technology, what engineering, what sound barriers are you going to put? They don't know yet. And we got that answer for many, many things that they don't know yet. They're going to do it, but they don't know yet. So I urge you to please, please consider voting no. Thank you very much. Next up is Becca Braultz. And before you speak, is Marty Hinton here? Hinton? And you're giving up your time? Yes. Thank you. And Frank Butler, and you're giving up your time as well? All right. So Becca Braultz, you will have nine minutes. Before I start the slides? Awesome. Thank you. Do I control that or do you control it? Yeah. I can press a button? Okay. Great. All right. Hi. My name is Becca Braultz. I'm third district. I would like to first say thank you for your time today and preface that I happen to be the Belcourt Neighborhood Association president this year, but I'm representing myself today, and I want to talk to you about community. Some of the history you've already heard, but I'm going to reiterate a little bit of it. The neighborhood was developed near the turn of the century with the majority of homes being built before 1940. The Belcourt Neighborhood Association was founded in 1962 and became a 501c3 nonprofit organization in 1992. We have a volunteer board of 9-12 members which meet monthly and folks from the neighborhood volunteering on special projects or events throughout the year. The neighborhood includes approximately 170 residents and buildings and we are focused on improving the neighborhood and building our community. This includes commitment to stewardship of the Bell Place Park and its green space. So I don't wanna, this has already been mentioned and to avoid redundancy, I'll be quick, but Bell Court did receive an H1 overlay in 1990. This was by major efforts of the neighborhood and all the people who live in it. Our neighborhood stands out nationally for its concentration of historic homes, and it's listed in the National Register of Historic Places since 1982. Belcourt is a featured historic neighborhood stop on the National Register of Historic Places travel itinerary. In addition to all of that, Belcourt is one of the three neighborhoods in the state of Kentucky to have the National Preserve America designation. This is a federal initiative that encourages and supports community efforts to preserve and enjoy our priceless cultural and natural heritage. These efforts that I've just mentioned over the last 30 plus years have not come easy and were not given to the residents. Organizing the association, establishing an H1 overlay, dedicating time and resources to applying for grants and putting Belcourt on the map of historically significant communities have been grassroots efforts where loads of neighborhood volunteers put countless hours in. And these efforts have set the foundation for the community that we have today. We have an incredibly engaged population with many events held in the neighborhood and at the Bell House. Annual porch parties to celebrate our unique community and heritage. Block parties throughout the year to celebrate various seasons, most recently Halloween if anybody's asking. My kids were Buzz Lightyear and Izzy Hawthorne. Neighborhood meetings at the Bell House and an annual winter celebration at the Bell House. As I previously mentioned, the neighborhood is committed to stewardship of Bell Park and its green space. Historically, the neighborhood has worked with the LFUCG to implement a master plan to plant more trees and increase the canopy in Bell Park. Most recently, the neighborhood has worked with with Councilperson Legree's office to initiate a tree labeling project earmarking our own beautification funds to accomplish this. Bell Court being at the forefront of this will set the precedent and process for other neighborhoods throughout Lexington, our community as well. All of Lexington will be able to benefit should they choose to use similar funds this way. Additionally, we have started hosting twice yearly events in conjunction with West Sixth where a portion of the proceeds go directly to the neighborhood and to Lexington Parks and Rec. These efforts build and create a strong sense of community among neighbors. I'm sure there's a hundred stories that could be told about this community, but it's truly a place where a neighbor might reach out to borrow a cup of sugar, it happens, drop off donuts at your house because all of that being said, this neighborhood has worked cooperatively and successfully with other nearby businesses on mutual challenges. Pre-zoning of the Lexington Cutstone property on Midland as an example. We supported that. Project at the Herald-Leader building. We support that. Bellcourt is a compact neighborhood with a lot going on already. We work effectively and in harmony with the Bell House, the Carriage House, various recreational groups in the park, and of course, Good Shepherd. Events at the Bell House, a public events-based community center that hosts many events through the year including senior programs cultural and creative arts programs special events and activities belcourt neighborhood meetings and gatherings often the studio players at the carriage house generously send out flyers to neighborhood residents well in advance offering admission knowing the impact those events can have on our neighborhood and of course good shepherd during sunday services and during the week while the day school is in session. To sum it up with a not so serious but serious Beastie Boys lyric, it takes a second to wreck it, it takes time to build. Community takes time to build, years, decades. Community cannot be bought, cannot be sold. Today you'll hear from many voices in Belcourt's community. We've made an effort to avoid redundancy and not to cover topics more than once. You will hear many themes today including concerns around safety, traffic, future uses, impacts to other properties, and the precedent that this change could set. I ask Council to listen with an open mind and ask yourselves if this community is not already living up to the standards desired by the city. We are the ones who commute by walking or biking to work, to dinner, to support other neighborhoods locally, and support our community in general. We put our money back into our local economy, both immediate and surrounding community, supporting various businesses along Main, Walton, and National Avenue. I ask, is this the type of community you want to protect and nourish by retaining the existing zoning, or is this a community worth sacrificing. I urge you to vote no on the zoning change today. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Greg Ladd followed by Kevin Murphy. Is Greg Ladd still here? Thank you. I'm going to preface my comments by saying I am uncomfortable speaking in front of a large group of people but i felt like i had something to say here uh mr ladd would you give us your name i'm sorry greg ladd 1106 fincastle road um district 5 i believe um we bought the building 27 years ago from z faulkner uh z sold it because she was struggling at the time it's a beautiful building It's got to be maintained. It's a part of Lexington. We've been in business for 49 years now. I started right out of college. And this is our home. It was our home for all my children, for my wife and I, and for our business. You know, I'm 72 years old now. So it's time to turn this over to some energetic young people that have some good ideas. And I've seen their business plan. It's a good business plan. I think it will work. The building itself will not be changed physically outside. Inside will be a beautiful renovation. If you've been in the Manchester Hotel, one of the young fellows that's involved in this is also, he's the one that put together the Manchester Hotel, and it's beautiful inside. So the exterior will be maintained as it is. The interior will be beautiful, as I said. But, you know, everybody knows that brick and mortar businesses are dying. I mean, malls are closing everywhere. You know, we bought the building 27 years ago. We found it hard to make ends meet. $20,000 a month is weak. I mean, it was more than $20,000 a month to keep it alive. So we started looking for other ways to bring in income. We've probably taken hundreds of exhibitions on the road just to bring in the money. keep it, to keep it up to par, keep the building itself up to par. You know, it cost $90,000 to paint it two or three years ago or four or five years ago. So it's not cheap. I think these boys will do a good job. They're energetic. I think they have a great idea. The bottom line is, with reference to our Keeneland auction, it was wonderful. It was a great auction this year, but it had nothing to do with the facility we're in. It was strictly at Keeneland, and Keeneland housed the auction, and it went really well. The next 10 years we've been in business with Keeneland on this auction, and we've been there for 27 years. We've struggled for a long time. Bottom line is zone B1 with unrealistic restrictions on it. The planning and zoning boards voted to change those restrictions, and we agree that they should be changed. And I think this is something that will add to the Lexington community. Thank you very much. Kevin Murphy is up next. And then Carly Hager, are you here? You had yielded your time to Jessica Winters, but she's the representative. Did you want to speak on your own behalf? Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Yes, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the Urban County Council, my name is Kevin Murphy. I live in Belcourt and I just want to say that I'm no expert, but two comments I want to make up front is, well, number one, I have some questions. Number two, talk about stability. lived in belcourt for 25 years now and it is the most stable place i've ever lived in my life i believe so my questions revolve around some procedural things that could happen in the future and i don't know maybe daniel crumb or tracy might be best able to answer these questions but the first one has to do with development plan restrictions i know there have been discussions both at the planning commission meeting and at different meetings about putting restrictions on the development plan. And my understanding about development plans is that when they are changed, there's no notice sent. Is that still correct? Mr. Murphy, during public comment, nobody will be able to answer your questions. Oh, okay. All right. But there will be time. Well, my understanding is there is no public. Yeah, there will be time after public comment where planning staff will be able to either give rebuttal or additional comments. Okay, thank you. So they may address it then. All right. So, all right. Okay. So the other thing that I wanted to comment on, and we've heard a lot about restrictive uses, but just like at the planning commission meeting, I want to bring up the conditional uses. and you all are probably very much aware of the fact that conditional uses will go with the b1 zone and that they are entertained and approved or disapproved by the urban county board of adjustment back in march i happened to be attending one of the board of adjustment meetings and i'm not going to bore you with all the information in the minutes from that meeting but I would like to just read one section about a case from an appellant called the Paddock. And there was a request by them for a conditional use permit for a cocktail lounge with an indoor and outdoor live entertainment and a variance to reduce the required setback from a residential zone from 100 feet to 35 feet within the defined infill reef and redevelopment area in the neighborhood business b1 zone this appeal was approved by the board of adjustment and i'm not proposing that the current owners would be doing this in the future but it does set up the possibility for future owners once the ball starts rolling to have a restaurant, to have those facilities, to expand it for economic reasons. And if you're into anything regarding planning and zoning, you know that precedent is what it's all about. Here's your precedent right here. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. All right. Thank you. I urge you to vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Elizabeth Elkinson, followed by Laura Babbage. Hello, my name is Elizabeth Elkinson. I live at 520 Sayre in District 3. My husband and I moved to Belcourt in 2010 when our daughters were 5 and 3 years old. We dreamed of living in Belcourt since our days as UK grad students in the early 2000s. Many of our neighbors already lived here back then, and it's the kind of place you don't want to leave. We would walk through this amazing neighborhood and admire the historic homes and see families out walking and neighbors talking from their front porches. It struck us as the perfect place to live and still does. Its central location is close to UK and downtown, but not too close. It has the perfect blend. People let their children wander freely and readily share a cup of sugar. but we can also walk to the farmer's market and Rupp Arena, downtown restaurants that are close to our residential neighborhood. We're fortunate to live where we do and sad to see that neighborhoods like Belcourt are increasingly rare and at risk. And I think we all need to protect them. The consequences of not doing so will likely result in more families leaving these amazing old neighborhoods and single family homes being turned into businesses or short term rentals for the financial gain of a few at a time when as a city we're trying to increase the number of housing units within our urban service boundary. I think a lot of people in town oppose all development, especially when it suits them personally. I'm really not one of those people. However, I do strongly believe that development needs to be done thoughtfully with concern and care, taking into account all of the lives it can affect and in the many ways it can affect them. And development should not only take into consideration the wants and needs of a small group of investors and developers, but really take into consideration the wants and needs of the families who reside in these historic neighborhood. Changing the zoning on the 509 East Main property would have a very direct impact on my home as our backyard abuts the applicant's property. It is approximately 100 feet from our back door to their back patio. But this is larger than just my home or my neighbors' homes, which are even closer in some cases. This is about setting a precedent. It is about future uses for numerous properties all along Main Street and Walton Avenue and all the homes that line the perimeter of our neighborhood. And not just our neighborhood, but many others like ours. Please, when deciding on this zoning change, take into consideration the many, many families that live here, that sleep here, that wake up here, that sit on their porches and walk their dogs, teach their kids to ride bikes here, and weigh whether or not the applicant's proposal will really improve the quality of life for the members of our community as a whole. Thank you. Up next is Laura Babbage, followed by Steven Davis. Thank you. Laura Babbage, Tates Creek Road, District 3. Well, I thank you, council members, for listening to us and for being here. It's a long night, and we appreciate that, and we appreciate all you do for our community. I'm so glad to be here to support this zone change. What has already made the greatest impression on me and the many others is the deep commitment of these developers to preserving, protecting, and respecting the neighbors and the neighborhood while making significant contributions to crucial civic causes in our city. Even though 509 Main Street needs considerable fixing up, if you've driven by it, you know that, one leading not-for-profit organization has already used the building for an important fundraiser at no cost to them. A reminder that all organizations have a responsibility to give back, give back to the community. In fact, in these brief months, over a dozen times, these developers have let nonprofits use the club's transportation that they happen to own at no cost. A great example to others in our community of ways that they can give back. The development members have a strong demonstrated civic commitment. They live here, they have families here, and they plan to stay here. So contributing to the community is important to them. And as an advocate for doing good for the community, I've been before you many times now, I will continue to encourage the great civic work that they are doing and perhaps even find other opportunities where they can do more. In addition, the developers plan to continue to display art in their refurbished building. They will continue to showcase the works of local artists and help sell their works. So it's a good thing. They represent a generation driven to doing good while doing well. It's a good thing in our community to have developers who really want to do good while doing well. I ask you to approve this zoning change recommended by the Planning Commission, and I thank you again for your time. Thank you. Thank you. up next is Stephen Davis followed by Megan Winfield good evening I'm Stephen Davis district 12 and I appreciate the time to speak I hope that you support the zoning change you all know everybody in this room knows that this has been a world-class place for soils for horses for bourbon I'm not a lad. I'm not a Belcourt resident. I've only lived here for five years, and I've navigated the social and cultural fabric of this town year after year, often finding myself in limbo. While it's abundantly clear that Lexington is the heartbeat of what makes this region so famous and so amazing, anyone who's been here even as short of a time as I have knows that we aren't just farms or whiskey, as much as I love it, or horses. We're cuisine. We are industry, we are education, we're small business, and we're art too. By voting yes for this zone change, you will be helping Lexington's future in the following ways. In my opinion, for one, you help to ensure that Lexington gets more share of the cultural spotlight with these neighboring spaces in our region. You know, the other counties that everybody else goes to, rather than just being a destination in April and October. You help to ensure that artists know that Lexington is a place that values them. They don't have to go to Chattanooga and Northwest Arkansas, Asheville, to find a place to build a living. Supporting this project means that you're giving young professionals a reason to stay here. After all, Lexington is not just a place that you come back to settle down to. You also help to ensure that future business owners know that Lexington will continue championing small business, even as our community expands in size. And lastly, maybe most importantly, I'm a little biased, but you help to ensure that Lexington has a vibrant artistic livelihood. Fostering a healthy artistic environment is difficult. I know it personally because I'm a former musician, some might say recovering, and a former arts educator. Artistic environments often die because their needs outweigh what the public dollars can sustain. The reality is that everyone from Beethoven to Claude Monet to Kentucky's beloved Henry Faulkner had patrons, private dollars, to keep their artistic visions alive. This project supports our artistic landscapes in ways that public agencies cannot. Our town is growing. It's changing. And as you well know as council members, the deliberation of Lexington's future is fraught with controversial and paint discussion. I've been a part of some of those. However, the one thing that should not be debated here is if we value our culture or the small businesses that have helped build it. Were you to oppose this zone change, I think that you'd be jeopardizing both. Supporting this project is an opportunity for you to help show the world that Lexington is and will continue to be a world-class destination, possessing an abundance of cultural depth and sophistication that a lot of people write this place off for. Thanks. Thank you. Up next is Megan Winfield. And before you start, Ms. Winfield, is Brady Barlow here? Okay. Is Ada Selwitz here? And you're yielding your time? Thank you. And is John Bloomfield here? I don't need that. And you're yielding your time as well? I only get nine, so that's... That's right. Yeah, that's good. Just making sure everybody on the list was there, so you'll have nine minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Megan Winfield. I'm in the 3rd District. I live across Forest Avenue on Main Street from the 509 property. My husband Brady and I have lived in a residence on Main Street in Belcourt for 20 years. The challenge that I'm having with this proposed zone change is multifaceted. The particular use is a really bad one. A two-story outdoor deck, double bars, all the smoke, noise, dumpsters that come without within yards of neighbors, an exceptionally dangerous intersection which has caused the city to reject multiple projects previously, Uber drivers and club members who have to be forced through the neighborhood to get back to a main road, all make this project a terrible neighborhood compatible business. There's been no proposed cap on membership. There's a lot of impacts to our neighborhood, but it's an invitation-only club, so we don't get any of the benefits. We only get those impacts. Additionally, these particular owners have been lying to our neighborhood since the first time we engaged with them, and they continue to do so. We don't need to rehash all of the challenges we've had with transparency with these developers. It's well documented from the minutes in the planning hearing. and reinforced by the Planning Commission. We've had many attempts to talk to them about compromises that have gone unanswered. This is not a great foundation for our neighborhood relationship. The collateral that you all were handed tonight by the developers has never been given to our neighborhood association. We saw it for the first time on the slides that the opposing attorney presented. The fundraiser that they mentioned that they so graciously hosted was illegal, it was not permitted, and it was a party. So when they say it's not going to be a party house, you can understand why we're suspect. But the other point I wanna make about these developers is they are well-funded LLC owners with money from additional investors. They've paid $2.7 million for this property. Their lawyer indicated they plan to spend another million dollars on it after they get a construction permit. Let's not pretend that this is a mom and pop story of a struggling business, it's just not. They haven't yet opened a business. This was a strategic investment with a statement in their investor packet of a zone change that was already taken care of. I don't know what already taken care of means to you all or in this context, but it seems to mean that our neighborhood or any city processor official would not be of particular concern to these developers. They had no intention of engaging the neighborhood until they were told by planning that they needed to. Our neighborhood was told, we plan to have a co-working space with some art discussion. You don't need five bars and a commercial kitchen to have a co-working space with art discussion. But beyond all of this, my biggest concern is that myself and my neighbors were in this for the long haul. Some of the people in this room were in discussion with the previous owners who made this restricted zone change decades ago. That's the same year their neighbors got the H1 restricted. The goal was to protect the neighborhood indefinitely. They didn't have some of the options that we have now for zoning, but that was still intended to be a forever production for Belcourt. This project that these developers are proposing, it may last a couple of years. We don't have any evidence to support that, but they may make a few years out of this. But when they're done with their party house and they've decided that they're going to move on, our neighborhood is stuck sliding down the slippery slope of this zone change. When these owners have given up, we're stuck with what's left, and then our neighborhood finds herself back here again. We're left with all of the other possible uses, some of which are equally or more high impact and unsuitable for this particular location. As high intensity uses are created without a buffer to long term residents, what is our expectation for homeowners? How can we reasonably expect them to stay? How can we expect new long term residents to replace them? Instead, I think we should expect short term rentals or the next B1 use to be the replacement for surrounding properties. And those B1s will use this B1 as a precedent. This is the first B1 use in our neighborhood that backs up to a residential property. An important precedent will be set here. And then this neighborhood begins to erode, property by property. Next door becomes a B1 or short-term rental. The neighbors around that property no longer want to live there, and so on, and so on. This isn't fiction. We've seen this pattern play out in neighborhoods in Lexington. Meanwhile, in Belcourt, we've had investors turning short-term rental and businesses back into long-term residential. We have been moving in the right direction in our neighborhood. So we need to ask what kind of Lexington do we want? Why do we keep trying to tear down the few strong urban neighborhoods that we have left? If any neighborhood on a corridor is subject to this domino effect, that means we put at risk Ashland Park, Kenwick, Mentel, all of Richmond Road residences, including Idle Hour, and that's just Main Street and Richmond Road corridor. Now we're really accepting the premise that any property on a corridor is fair game for any use within this list. Even if surrounded by long-term residents and even if the property itself is a key part of the neighborhood fabric, these are the neighborhoods that are walkable, bikeable, filled with people who have made long-term commitments to making the urban core their home. This is the fabric of downtown. We are the fabric of downtown. Businesses without residents downtown do not succeed. Do we want downtown to be like so many cities? Nine to five, five days a week, maybe the occasional Rupp Arena event, bring people downtown and otherwise it's a ghost town because nobody lives here if we run the neighborhoods out that is where we will end up we've all been to those cities these downtown neighborhoods house families who stay for decades very different to apartment and condo projects right now we have a vibrant downtown core and a healthy historic fabric that is fighting to survive property by property the only way for these to coexist is to create buffers and have and avoid having high impact uses right next to residences this This is shown to be effective. It's a best practice for preservation and for zoning and for viable downtowns to coexist. We see this best practice used in other cities. It's also been a deciding factor for this city council in the past to limit zone changes. It's part of the strategic plan. Unlike so many issues that this council faces, this one is a problem that has a fairly simple solution. Don't put high impact use businesses next to residential properties. Create a buffer. Belcourt has enjoyed this buffer for decades, and this would be the first domino of tearing it down. When I met with planning to learn about this process, a statement was made by a staff member, everything has to go somewhere. I reject that premise wholeheartedly. I believe that everything needs to go in the right place for that thing. That is the point of planning and zoning. It is not a box checking exercise or a paper moving job, or at least it shouldn't be. Can we do better as a city? Do we want to do better as a city? isn't the right zone for this location there are plenty of places that this project may be a good fit for and there are plenty of uses that make sense in this location please vote against expanding this zone for these high impact uses not just because of this one use but because this is a long-term investment for lexington's future thank you for your time and attention thank you next up is Sylvia Sarosol followed by Bob Babich. Hello yes I'm Sylvia Sarosol thanks so much I live in I believe the fifth district of a new council member and it's 3204 Pepper Hill. So I am grateful to get to talk to you as I realized today a fourth generation Lexingtonian whose great-grandmother worked for over 70 years on Main Street and ran a business for over 50 years there. So I had her until the middle 80s, went downtown, was beginning to fail. She did always live downtown. She always walked to work. And I am very grateful to have spent many years driving up and down Main Street. And Zee Faulkner, somebody... I think I may have seen a few weeks ago, if not last week. So these are all places I care about. And I also live in a neighborhood, but I live with my house facing out on a busy street. So I'm kind of sensitive. I'm sensitive to concerns of people who don't like traffic. But I really feel that it's important to preserve our historic, beautiful buildings in a way that makes our city much more interesting. My family may have been from here, but my kids are far, far away getting their education. And I would like to see our town much more interesting, a la Manchester, whatever. I would like to see the arts supported, just as that nice young man spoke about. I would like to see the young local artists supported in a way that makes it so that my children, I hope, will want to come back. And I support a lot of causes and businesses that make it so that I hope that will be possible. So that's why I am supporting this particular cause. So thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank you. Bob Babbage, followed by Jenny Daly. Good evening, and thank you, Vice Mayor Wu and members of the council. One thing I learned many years ago sitting where you sit for six years is that zoning is hard work. Mr. Babbage, can I back you up to your name and council district? I'm sorry? Will you state your name and council district? I'm sorry, Bob Babbage, District 3. Sorry. It's hard work, and that's why we depended on staff and the planning commission who based determinations on well-established facts and rules and precedent. And I would ask you to rely on the Planning Commission and those professionals tonight. I would especially compliment Daniel Crump for his fine work, even in the face of misguided harassment from some, which was regrettable. The economic changes that we all know don't need a whole lot of definition or graphs or charts. They're in the record, but that thing called the Internet has dramatically affected businesses like the lads and many others. all of our work everywhere. So that is a point to note, as well as numerous others. Louisville, Cincinnati, Chattanooga, other communities are doing organizations like this with similar goals. And like Lexington, they have a very modern approach to membership. I repeat, a very modern approach to membership. And borrowing from the great phrase of one of the lawyers here tonight, this is really where entrepreneurship embraces social justice and the future. I'd like to visit with you about the parking. It's been touched by several folks, but just consider this. Four years ago, if the lads had had an event in Bell Court and 100 people attended, there'd probably been 50 or 60 cars in the neighborhood. Listening to the neighbors, the developers worked overtime, worked endlessly, made agreements, spent more money to get all of the parking out of the neighborhood. So if that event occurred in 2024, upon completion of this project, there would be net zero parking in the neighborhood. That is dramatically different. That supports the goal that you have mentioned as council members to use unused or underused parking. It's going to be a gold standard for other developers. Can you match 509 East Main for a parking solution that is innovative, different, and complete and thorough? So in conclusion, I would simply like to thank you for all the time and attention you give matters like this. Approving the Planning Commission decision is the request we have for you. We also know that you have a leading role in setting the tone and tenor and spirit and heart of this exceptional city. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Jenny Daly, followed by Tracy Hawkins. Good evening. My name is Jenny Daly. I live in District 10, so I do not live in this neighborhood. But I'm here tonight on behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, FCNC, which most of you know is an umbrella organization representing neighborhoods and neighborhood issues throughout the entire county. The Fayette County Neighborhood Council supports the concerns of the Belcourt neighborhood and asks that you deny the request to remove the current conditional restrictions placed on this B1 zoned property. We believe that allowing a broadened B1 use will be detrimental to the neighborhood, particularly the residential properties in close proximity to the subject property. We concur with most of the neighborhood's concerns about the redevelopment of the property, especially whether this type of private club support, enhances, and serves the needs of the surrounding residential area. That's direct text from what the purpose of the B1 zone is. Also, this vague dispersed parking plan does not seem realistic or sustainable over time. What happens when justice wants to do something with that extra lot next door? There's a funeral at Kerr Brothers. It's not a creative solution. And then we're also concerned with the use of the large existing residential suite in their literature that was there proposed to use by club members. and wonder how that fits in with the new short-term rental ordinances. FCNC is also concerned about the bigger picture and what sort of precedent this might set for other neighborhoods throughout Fayette County, especially those high-density neighborhoods that have very little buffer between residential property and neighborhood businesses. Look, on one hand, you've got a long-standing, stable, healthy neighborhood that by and large does not want this private club or the additional conditional uses versus a brand new LLC that's never managed a business like this before. Should the business fail or change, what happens next? We think it's imperative to stand behind the neighborhood in this case. FCNC champions the B1 neighborhood business zone when applied appropriately, but in this case, perhaps b1 is not the right zone for this property as mr nicholson points out this is going to be one of the most heavily restricted properties in the county and land use 101 will tell you that a heavily restricted property generally indicates the wrong zoning it would seem that professional or office type zoning or reverting to the high density residential would be a much better fit We encourage you to deny the zone change request and send this idea back to the drawing board. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Tracy Hawkins followed by Lori Lynn Hurley. I think she's going to cede her time to me. Say that again. Who is? She's going to cede her time to me. I'm yielding my time to Tracy. Gotcha. Thank you very much. You've got six minutes. you okay my name is tracy hawkins i live at 221 bell place i've lived in bell court for almost 30 years when i moved into the neighborhood it was still pretty rough in locations some of the properties were a genuine mess and on the verge of falling in on themselves i've personally restored three properties in the neighborhood 257 bell place 221 bell place and 219 bell place 219 bell place needed new box gutters somebody had cut the main beam in the house in half to set a furnace the interior floor had turned all the way over like this one floor board needed to be repointed windows redone porch rebuilt new addition it was a big deal so i know what it takes to restore a building i know the cost physically and financially i know what's involved but with time care and energy the neighborhood has taken what was a at risk historic neighborhood and like turned it into something really cool and what it is is a community it's a community that cares about each other and this all was possible under the umbrella of historic preservation right this was done in 1990 this is when this was passed the same year z faulkner got together with her attorney and counsel and they came up with a solution that fit her need fit the neighborhood's need everybody works it was great this is the spirit of the collaboration reflected on page 274 of the place builder section of imagine lexington achieving a neighborhood's vision for improvement requires an informed strategic approach scaled to that specific community and that's what they did and that's in 2023 june 2023 that's what the city published as the right approach for such things. So I've thought a lot about the spirit of Belcourt in the past few weeks, and I would characterize it this way. This is a place where we recognize that we aren't doing well if our neighbors aren't doing well. We look out for each other. We sacrifice for each other. This is the real appeal of Belcourt. It's a community in the truest sense. And I've read through Imagine Lexington several times this month, and I think there's a lot of good thought, good heart, good ideas, and good intentions in there. I genuinely appreciate the level of care that's gone into that. The difficulty comes when it gets down to a specific issue. How do we address two opposing sides? this is where the hard work of building a community and growing a city that's where it happens i think the best place to start is with the language in imagine lexington strive for positive and safe social interactions in neighborhoods If we look at the place builders section of Imagine Lexington, I think we can gain some clarity about how the city thinks growth could best occur at the edges of historic and existing neighborhoods. Zoning changes and development should minimize intrusion and ensure existing and new neighborhoods flourish through improved regulation, expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation. The 509 building is historic, but the program, right, this is the two things about architecture. You have a building and then you have a program. What do you need that, what do you need that place to do for you? The program for the club at 509 is not sensitive to our neighborhood. It's an intrusion. It's not in keeping with the flourishing community that we have cultivated in Bell Court. It's the antithesis of the character of our neighborhood. It will undermine 40 years of hard work from us, historic preservation, previous council members and most importantly Zee Faulkner, an artist with the vision and sensitivity to recognize the importance of the neighborhood and his 509 as the anchor and entry into Lexington's largest most intact historic neighborhood. I ask the city to continue the long-standing successful relationship that we've shared and deny this zone change. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Bill Ming followed by Mike Smith. uh yes my name is bill ming district three and um i just wanted to talk for a minute about the economic and social conditions in lexington right now regarding the arts and antiques community i know the name bob no isn't going to mean anything to you all but he was a friend of mine who amassed the great Kentucky art and antiques collection. And I love places like the UK Art Museum and LexArts, and I think they're a benefit to the community. But as Mr. Noh sat there telling me, he could not get anyone here to take his collection. And in the end, now when you go to the Speed Museum in Louisville, their whole lower level is the Kentucky Room, which is the no collection and when he offered it to him the people here who told him no over there they raised 27 million i think just to build him a whole new area and that's on the social end of it now i consult a lot with the states here and frankly on low level stuff a lot of us are sending everything to Asheville, North Carolina, to Bronx, and to Case and Knoxville. That's the low level and mid level. On the upper end, there are also places we're looking at in North Carolina and Virginia. And I'm finding that with my fellow dealers around here in town. Like Field, I also have spent a third of the year on the road every year for the last 17 years, it seems. And so I have sat in places like Thomasville, Georgia, talking to these other dealers from around the country who dropped out of coming to the Bluegrass Trust Antique and Garden Show and would literally ask me the question of why don't people in Lexington buy? I can picture them saying that to me. And so, frankly, that is the current economic situation we are facing here in Lexington, the art and antiques industry. So I find it unbelievable that to see this building to be so restrictive in its zoning to that industry. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Mike Smith, followed by Maureen Peters. Good evening, everyone. My name is Mike Smith. I'm in Council District 3, I believe. I've been in Lexington for 60 years. I've been in Bellcourt for 17 years. I own a house in Bellcourt and I own several condos in Clayvilla. I'm an architect involved in planning. I also have a business that develops and builds infill housing in downtown Lexington. You know, Lexington is the kind of neighborhood that everybody's trying to recreate. It is the model for a successful neighborhood. And what's really great about Lexington is that Lexington supports successful neighborhoods. The Imagine Lexington states that as one of their goals, that and increasing the density in the urban district. I'm opposed to this zone change, but it completely contradicts the stated goals of the city, those two goals I just mentioned. and i think that if you look down the road um and people have talked about it precedents and i'll try and be a little bit brief um the zone change does set a precedent and i think you need to ask yourself okay if this opens the door if it is voted as a change which contradicts imagine lexington the state of goals of the city how will developers see that is that an open door that means that the next time someone wants to develop, it's on down Richmond Road as somebody said. There are already businesses south of Ashland on the Kenwick and Ashland Park, so I think that I'm here to ask you to vote against this zone change and support the stated goals of Lexington, which I think benefit all of us and the success of the city, and vote against this zone change. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Maureen Peters, and is Joe Turley here and you're yielding your time thank you miss peters you'll have six minutes my name is maureen peters third district i live at 535 russell avenue my husband joe turley and i have a long history with bell court which goes back much further than our home ownership When my husband attended college in the 1970s, he lived in Barclay East, and when I went to UK in the 1980s, I lived in Clay Villa. We bought our house in 1992, which was only two years after Belcourt became a historic district, and tensions were still very high about whether or not it was the right thing to do. Judy Grunwald, a board member at the time of the overlay, was our neighbor two doors down when we moved in. She's still our neighbor today. And as she described it to me, Belcourt in the mid 80s was in a state of decline, a very non desirable place to live. Ellerslie Place directly behind the neighborhood, comprised mostly of non owner occupied, predominantly African-American rental units, was assembled by a developer, and the entire street was torn down. Belcourt neighbors feared the same thing would happen to Boonesboro, since many of the properties were in rough shape and were rentals. After considering the options, Belcourt Neighborhood Board, which included Judy, Margo Miller, Mark Cross, Becky Lewis, and others, decided the best course of action was to seek an H1 overlay. H1 had become an effective tool for the historic residential neighborhoods bringing Lexington's downtown core, which had been decimated by urban renewal of the 1960s and 70s. Work on the overlay began in the mid-80s, but became official in 1990. The same year, Zee Faulkner approached the neighborhood with a request to put her business, an antique fixture fabric shop, along with a residence in 509 East Main Street. The property at the time was zoned R4 and occupied by a fraternity house. Joe and I both remember it well. Z needed a zone change to be one to establish her business. With the help of the city, she agreed to place restrictions on the zone change to protect the neighborhood from unwanted infringement. Per Judy, the neighborhood may have been wrong to trust the city representatives who looked them in the eye at the time as they negotiated these terms in good faith and were promised by the city's leaders if they agreed to it, quote, the city would have our backs. The neighborhood would have never agreed to this without these assurances from the city. Fast forward three decades later, after many rental units have been replaced with owner occupied residences. As property owners invested their time, energy, and money into their homes and businesses to build Belcourt into the thriving neighborhood it is today. These investments were made with the knowledge and confidence of the stability of our neighborhood boundaries. I believe if the neighborhood is now being asked to remove the restrictions made in good faith, the property should revert back to the original zoning, down-zoned instead of up-zoned. Lexington has said we are in need of additional housing downtown and there are many examples along this section of the East Main Richmond Road corridor with multi-unit residential mixed among single-family structures. I raised this concept in earlier hearings and letters. Opposing councils seemed surprised the neighborhood would want to see the R4 return but at least we would know what we're dealing with. In lieu of some yet to be determined business plan from a group who don't seem to always agree on what they're doing or maybe they're just sandbagging us and they have something completely different in mind. The club's leadership have stated with the current zoning restrictions they can't create enough income to keep up the historic structure but they also cannot tell us the number of members necessary, the initiation fee, or the sustaining dues required to make a private club in this location economically viable but somehow they expect the neighborhood to believe them when they say it will all work out and they will be a great neighbor as council members i know all of you work diligently on important projects and initiatives all over the city and county working with constituents of your districts and lexington citizens in general you asked them many times to seek compromise and maybe agree to settle for something less than what they want. With assurances the city will hold up their end of the bargain. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Up next is Trish Smith, followed by Parker Deppin. Hi everybody. First, I'm Trish Smith, District 3, live in Belcourt, 212 East Belcourt. This is past my bedtime. I am so appreciative of you all being here. This is a long night. Thank you very much. I'm here as my role as a homeowner. also on the two neighborhood associations involved in this property to just talk about this process. Because this was all new to me and this has been a real learning experience. You can see our neighborhood outline there, you can see their property. And from our perspective on our neighborhood associations, this is our neighborhood, right? So we don't have a lot of businesses, there may be in the larger area, but we just have this one. That is, ah, there we go. This process feels very rushed as a neighborhood member, okay? The developers told us that they spent a year before they bought the property discussing ideas. Then they bought the home in June. They distributed a brochure in January of 2023. They filed for the zone change in August of 2023. And you can see down there on the neighborhood timeline, that's where we enter this picture. that whole other time there was no engagement with our neighborhood we didn't know this was happening city notifies the people in the perimeter we have an active neighborhood association they notify us we canvas physically canvas 170 plus households to find out what do people think about this project we have meetings we have meetings with them we have meetings with members we have lots of meetings We are sending updates, we're making copies. There's a lot of work that goes into this from a neighborhood. This is an intensive process. Then we fundraise to raise attorney fees. We asked for the zone hearing in September to be postponed. They said no, the planning staff postponed it. Our attorney couldn't be there. She was out of the country, they held the meeting anyway. This process does not feel collaborative. We've made all kinds of requests, all kinds of attempts to collaborate. We don't get a lot back. We even sent a email with all of our requests, no response. We're volunteers, they're professionals. This is a generational change. It was 30 years since the last zone change. This is a big deal. And we still have questions. You're going to vote tonight. We still don't have questions answered. What makes what feels like a residential street for us a downtown corridor? Where are the buffers? What are our rights as 170 plus households versus their rights as a business? How do we enforce their promises? And can anything really, really good come out of a process like this? Thank you very much. Thank you. Up next is Parker Deppin, sorry, Parker Deppin, followed by John Franklin. Hi, everybody. In the interest of time, I'll keep this brief. My name is Parker Deppin, and I live at 1320 Greyhawk Road. Nobody write that down. I'm a lifelong Lexingtonian. I'm 26 years old. I went to the University of Kentucky, and I soon after college opened my own business selling industrial supplies here in Kentucky. As a young business owner and a 26-year member and resident of Lexington, it really excites me to see fellow young people passionate about making Lexington a really cool and fun place to be. When I first heard about the plans of the social club, I was very interested but a bit worried that it might be a little too similar to other private clubs, which really don't cater to me or people my age or young women really at all. I think we know the traditional private club model. It's expensive, uppity, male-focused, and not really a place I'd dying to join. After hearing about the plan of the club at 509 East Main and meeting the founders, I realized that they were committed to opening a really cool and unique space that was different from the other traditional clubs, a place where all groups feel welcome, a place where financially, a place that is financially viable for a large portion of Lexington and inclusive to all people from all different walks of life. I look forward to utilizing the club to work, relax, and socialize with like-minded business women and i once again ask the members of the council to take the recommendation of planning and zoning and to vote to uphold their decision to remove the deed restriction so that this project can move forward thank you thank you and john franklin you're up next all right looks like that is the end of our public comment then moving on to rebuttals does Does staff have rebuttals or additional comments? Come on up, Mr. Crum. You'll have five minutes. Daniel Crum, planning staff, once again. Just wanted to touch on kind of a couple different topics that were raised just to clarify for you all. Deed restrictions were mentioned a couple times during this presentation, So I just wanted to kind of differentiate between what we are deciding here, which is a conditional zoning restriction, which is a part of the ordinance that governs that land use, versus a deed restriction, which is a private agreement between the landowners that are involved in the sale. So the government is not involved in taking a look at existing deed restrictions. So that's between the property owners. And as a private matter, we're here to decide the zoning and the conditional zoning restrictions, which are part of that ordinance. So specifically, those prohibitions and those conditions that we outlined earlier in the presentation. There was a comment made about the property's relationship to downtown. I'll bring back the zoning map just to kind of identify this. So the subject property is located here. This reddish color here, that is B2A, so that is downtown zoning. That's that downtown frame zoning allows for mixing of uses. That was established in 2008. It does also have some conditional zoning restrictions, but fewer than what is present on the subject property here. So this is still within the kind of downtown corridor that downtown maintains that connectivity with the rest of downtown. There was some comments about the development plan. So the crowd was correct in that normally a final development plan doesn't send out letters like there would be a required notification area like there isn't rezoning. However, at the request of the neighborhood, there has been a note placed within our Acela program. So upon filing for a final development plan, the neighborhood representatives will be contacted and involved in that process. So the neighborhood has reached out, so they would be notified if this zone change were approved and it went on to final development plan stage. Once again, as they've only had a preliminary development plan approved through the Planning Commission, they would have to go back before another public hearing in order to actually develop the property. There has been some questions about the historic overlay. once again any changes to the property any redevelopment with further use would require review by the board of architectural review and that full process as well and so that plays into part of planning staff's considerations on the appropriateness of the uses in the zone there's been a couple references to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan which as a planner i'd love to hear however in this one particular instance when you are dealing with conditional zoning restrictions it is a very specific standard you are looking to see if there's been that economic physical or social change in the area that that makes those conditions no longer appropriate so it is a very set standard it is not the normal place builder criteria the full-blooded conversation about the goals objectives policies the comprehensive plan that we've worked so hard to develop as always it should sort of be the kind of a guiding principle behind the decisions that we all make as a community but in this instance this is an existing b1 zone and this is a discussion on how to modify those conditions i believe that's sort of everything that staff wanted to address so that's it at this time thank you mr crumb petitioner want to rebuttal yeah mr nicholson come on up you'll have five minutes uh thank you uh just a couple kind of quick bullet points um uh the neighborhood has referenced that there aren't any business zone properties in the h1 overlay that's just not true on the map that actually was just up you could even see one of them 497 east main is zone b2a it is part of the belcourt overlay it is currently for sale and is not restricted in any way shape or form 631 east main is also b1 it is entirely unrestricted as well. There was a comment that this specific conditional zoning restriction was carefully tailored. That couldn't be further from the truth. They took a machete to the B1 zone and said just that. That is not carefully tailored in any way, shape, or form, and it also happened on the fly during the zone change hearing. They basically tweaked the languages that the original conditional zoning restriction was the retail sale for goods such as yada yada yada that got changed to the word only which is why we're in the situation we're in right now we did make physical economic and social changes arguments in our justification in our presentations and in the kind of supporting information that were submitted the staff and the planning commission both found that there had been the they kind of focus on the economic major changes but we did make all three of those kind of justifications um in the uh the miss winters presentation all of the properties that she pointed to that have incredibly successful retail uh kind of design type businesses are all in properties that are incredibly unlike what we are talking about today they're one story 1700 square feet commercial structures they're in industrial areas or in warehouse areas except for one that's 479 uh east main street that is the and or the and greeley gallery right now one of the letters that we submitted to you all today was from the owners of that establishment and they even state that one used to be able to run a profitable business from these grand locations but the internet has made it nearly impossible for some businesses like mine and crossgate to operate in a profitable with such demanding overhead. She even specifies that she would be uniquely qualified to basically talk about the economic realities of this type of structure. Mr. Crum already pointed into about the deed restriction. that is entirely for the courts it's not for the planning commission or the council to basically you know have to deal with in any way shape or form on the two kind of neighborhood experts their residents we did submit substantial macro level economic arguments with our justification letter and with the documented from the national level we also had several local people basically come and testify submit letters and talk about how it was just not an economic viable reality i think had they been presented all of that information i don't know that expert opinion very well might change but it certainly is required to get the full picture before you say that there's not been an economic justification provided on the real estate you got to take into account what it takes to make something exist before you can say it's economically viable and to not look at what it would cost to convert a second story single family house in an h1 zone that has been there since 1940 and turn it into six condos that violates ada you just got to take that into consideration when you're talking about the economic viability of any type of real estate we did run renovation costs we did determine actual profitability and realize that that is not a viable option on short-term rentals it we would have to come back and get a conditional use permit which does require notice to all of the neighborhood and so there isn't a concern that this can suddenly become short-term rentals overnight on the commercial they just pointed to small retail establishments in shopping uh kind of areas that exist today that's just not a valid comprehensive or a comparison in any way shape or form the key feedback that i feel like the neighborhood has really given today is they don't want a business use here um to be very clear this is not a zone change this is a b1 property we're here to decide if this can be a successful b1 property or if it's gonna deteriorate if it's gonna become an eyesore if it's gonna be something like i don't know what kenwick table was before also everyone loves kenwick table i guess because it's close enough to bike to to walk to but isn't part of their neighborhood I will say I kind of had a flashback, but I will save that for a conclusion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Does the opposition have a rebuttal? Ms. Winters, thank you. You have five minutes. Thank you. I wanted to touch on a few of the criticisms of the Belcourt Neighborhood's expert witnesses that were raised on the cross-exam of those experts. First, Dr. Patel was asked whether he lives on Midland Avenue. He does. This is near the subject property, but is not in the Belcourt neighborhood. Dr. Patel is an eminently qualified economist who holds a PhD, is a director of undergraduate studies at the University of Kentucky. His qualifications are attached to the CV in his report. And the materials he relied upon informing his report are also specifically listed in the body of the report. He did review the applicant's submission materials that were submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. He did review the news articles that the applicant submitted. He did read the applicant or the Belcourt neighborhood materials as well. He did not review the minutes of the Planning Commission proceedings because those have not been finalized or shared with the public yet. He did review Lexington market data and research regarding the viability of the existing uses. He was asked whether he conducted an economic viability study for the restricted uses. He did not, because it is not the burden of Bell Court to do this. This is the burden of the applicant who is seeking removal of the restrictions. Dr. Patel concluded that the applicant's data was insufficient. He noted that in part that's because it lacks an economic viability study. As Dr. Patel concludes in his expert report, an economic viability study typically involves a comprehensive examination of market trends, consumer behavior, and financial projections. It assesses the potential success of a particular business or land use in each location. Such studies often include analyses of demographic data, market demand, and economic indicators. The absence of this crucial study leaves a gap in the justification for the removal of the zoning restrictions. Despite referencing nationwide trends, the economic impact of these trends on the local market remains unsubstantiated. The applicant also cross examined Mr. Elkinson, highlighting that his analysis did not take into account the cost of renovation for the subject property. There will be costs associated with any redevelopment of this property for any new use. Applicants have planned to invest a million or more in this property for a use that is not even currently allowed at that property. In fact, some of the adjustments that are necessary for the property to be used as dwelling units have already been performed for ADA compliance. There is an elevator, there is a ramp. The current uses allow dwelling units without reference to what floor these units should be located on. The use of the subject property and the continued use of the subject property as a mixed commercial and dwelling unit location is viable. It was viable in 1991 and it remains viable today. The applicant shared a slide with you showing B1 properties within H1 overlays. This demonstrates that B1 zones exist in H1 overlays. This is true. It also establishes that in many instances those B1 zones are restricted. The slide shared with you by the applicant does not reflect that the subject property is the only B1 use in the Belcourt H1 overlay that is surrounded on three sides by residential uses. It is restricted to protect the neighborhood. The historical records submitted to you establish that the B1 zone would not have been granted without these restrictions. The restrictions serve a vital buffering between the commercial and immediately adjacent residential uses. You have heard that the existing restrictions are not feasible. What have you not received as any data or evidence supporting this assertion? The applicant shared with you a graph presented in its materials. The graph does not relate to the success of the allowable uses in the Lexington market. This is the graph I'm referencing. It relates to quote share of compensation of employees. It should be noted that all the industries shown in this graph experienced a drop in 2020 due to COVID. and are showing growth now, all are trending upwards, including the furniture industry, which is a permitted use currently at the subject property. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes rebuttals, and we're going to move on to summations. Each presenting party is going to have three minutes, starting with planning staff. Mr. Crum. All right. Daniel Crumb, planning staff, kind of in summation, just wanted to highlight again the uses that you're looking at as far as the staff recommendation, the staff alternative conditions. They still have to meet the full requirements of the B1 zone. There was a discussion just now of those new restrictions on where those dwelling units have to be located. They still have to meet all requirements for the B1 zone. But overall, staff recommended approval of this request, as did the Planning Commission at their meeting. They found that there was a significant change in the retail trends for the industries permitted under the original conditional zoning restrictions, and that there was a major economic change that was not anticipated in 1990 at the time of the initial rezoning. Staff and the Planning Commission also found that the current conditional zoning restrictions unreasonably restrict the utilization of the subject property and the ability to maintain the historic structure on site. So both planning staff as well as the planning commission have recommended approval at this time. Staff does not have any further comments. Thank you, Mr. Crumb. Summation from the petitioner, please, Mr. Nicholson. And you'll have three minutes as well. Thank you. um no no matter how much folks want to paint this picture as kind of an elitist club a party club anything like that that is not what this is designed to be that is not what this is desired to be and we have openly put restrictions in place to try to make sure that that is not going to be the case what the question really is here today is do we want this to be a successful neighborhood business zone or do we not because that's what we're here to figure out is there a chance that a niche retailer might be able to pay three hundred thousand dollars in overhead for this space every single year for another year maybe maybe two i don't know the last person the last two people that tried it failed um do we want to acknowledge that we need to change this zone now or do we want to do that in a year or two years or three years because that is the reality of what is going on there is no way that this niche industry is going to survive in this location there's no way this can be a successful b1 property if this niche restriction remains any changes that are made to the b1 zone in the future do not matter this will still be the most restricted property in B1 period. Any additional uses that are added to the B1 zone in future changes aren't going to apply to this zone change because of how we wrote this conditional zoning restriction. The revised list of restrictions still make it one of the most restricted commercial properties. We have voluntarily agreed to address the overwhelming concerns that we did here, parking noise traffic safety in future uses that we don't know we've tried to add restrictions to address every single one of them and put them in the manner that is able to be binding on this property moving forward that will require notice to the neighborhood to make any type of changes it's not surprising whatsoever that your neighborhood or that your planning staff wholeheartedly recommend approval of this request and added uses than what we were proposing added uses over what we received from the neighborhood because they chose more uses to make it more equitable for all of our entire community and that's what this zone change is really about here i even say they got me saying it's a zone change it is not a zone change hearing but that's what we're here really to try to decide i'm happy to answer any questions if you all may have them but that's it for me thank you very much we'll have summation from the opposition as winners you'll have three minutes as well thank you for your time this evening council this is a de novo hearing and what that means is that you get to make this determination tonight based on your assessment of the information submitted this evening. You have one specific determinative question before you today. Has the applicant established by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a major economic shift in the area of the subject property that makes the continued imposition of the restrictions improper? We propose that the answer to that inquiry is no. The applicant has said that there has been a major shift economically. The applicant points to online shopping and states that that is a major economic shift justifying removal of conditions. What the applicant did not submit to you is market data supporting this statement. A blanket statement without supporting evidence does not satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard that the applicant is required to satisfy. There is online shopping nowadays, a lot more than there was in 1990. There are also brick and mortar stores, and in fact, both can exist at the same time in the same location. There are several local businesses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property that specialize in the uses that are currently permitted at the property, including furniture, fixtures, art, fabrics, and gifts. More businesses continue to open selling these items in this area every year. This shows economic viability. I wanted to mention to you that we have submitted our own proposed findings of fact, which each of you should have a copy of. The proposed findings of fact state that the application which seeks to remove zoning restrictions for the property located at 509 East Main Street to allow a private club at the subject property be denied Because the applicant has not met its burden of proving by a clear preponderance of the evidence that there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature at the subject property or within the area in which the subject property is located, which were not anticipated at the time the binding instruction was imposed, and which has substantially altered the basic character of the area making the restriction or condition inappropriate or improper. We ask you to find that the existing zoning restrictions, which have been in place since 1990, remain viable and have protected the fabric of the historic Belcourt neighborhood, while allowing neighborhood serving and compatible commercial uses. On the flip side of the proposed findings of fact that we have provided you are alternative findings of fact. If the council is inclined to vote in favor of the removal of the restrictions, The neighborhood has proposed a list of permitted uses for the property that are listed out there, a list of prohibited uses, and a list of other restrictions for the property that the neighborhood would be, as an alternative, happy to see. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Winters. That concludes summation. We are three hours into this. I'm going to do a quick straw poll of council if we want to muscle through or take a five. What do you all think? Okay, let's do a five minute break, be back here promptly at 835. Thank you very much. All right, so we're going to move on to questions from council. I will now open up the floor to council members to ask questions from any of the three presenting parties, including witnesses. Please make sure to ask all of your questions during this portion so we may only deliberate amongst ourselves once the hearing is closed. Colleagues, please sign in to speak. Thank you. Councilmember Lagree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a couple of questions based on the alternative findings of fact that were presented to us. I believe Ms. Wade or staff may be able to answer these. I'm looking at three different things all at once. I'm bringing Daniel with me. Okay, thank you. So number one, I'm looking at the proposed conditional zoning restrictions previously by the applicant, which were 17 different restrictions. But I had a question about one of them that I didn't see in any other places, which was number 16, form-based neighborhood business project. Is that part of the B1 zone? What is that? So that was proposed by the applicant, but then removed because the subject property is not large enough to meet the acreage threshold that is necessary in order to have a form-based project. So that was removed. It has to be an acre in size, and this parcel is half an acre. Okay, so the acreage was an issue there. So when I compare the alternative findings of fact, the 16 uses that Ms. Winters has put forward, I just want to ask a couple of different questions. From my reading of this, it looks like compared to the 21 that were approved by the Planning Commission, commission that her alternative findings of facts remove restaurant and brew pubs, removes day treatment centers, removes retail sale of food and then rehabilitation homes. Does that seem accurate to you? The accessory parking areas as well. And accessory parking areas, okay. And then when I'm going down into other use restrictions, I assume you all have a copy of the alternative findings of fact. This is section C, so numbers one, two, and three are the same as the. A, B, C, and D. Pardon, yeah, your all's B, C, and D. Right. But then when I go into numbers in her document, four through ten, which have to do with business hours, and then smoking, for example, a dumpster, a commercial kitchen grease trap, noise abatement, and then spotlights, string lights, and outdoor lighting. Can all of those different areas be regulated via zoning? some of them can okay others are already regulated by either other divisions and their regulations that are established or by building code requirements for instance commercial grease traps and venting of the kitchen hoods okay is controlled by the building code so really it would be inappropriate for the council and the Planning Commission to kind of dive into that level of detail generally we don't restrict something like smoking on the property we don't restrict business hours via conditional zoning restrictions and we don't restrict dumpster locations that's a development plan issue so if a dumpster should be relocated usually that goes through the solid waste so that we want to make sure it's accessible to our division of solid waste in addition lighting is something that can be restricted landscaping can be restricted we have had restrictions about outdoor music and outdoor speakers in the past okay thank you miss Winters did you want to add anything in I'm just seeking to clarify what we can and cannot regulate miss Winters if you'll approach the podium and speak on the mic please thank you We just noticed that the proposed alternative findings of fact that have been distributed to you mistakenly includes number five, community centers and private clubs. That was stricken off of our proposed alternative findings of fact, and the saved copy did not make it to your places. This was the prior. So you're asking them to strike number five. Strike five would be our proposal. Okay. Okay. Okay, are there any other clarifications you want to make while you're at the podium? All right, so my understanding, I only have 30 seconds left, is that we typically would not regulate business hours. We would not regulate smoking. We would not regulate dumpsters. We would not regulate kitchen, but that noise and outdoor lighting and speakers could be regulated in this setting. Yes. Okay, thank you. I'll log back in if I have other questions. Thank you. you councilmember Sheehan thank you chair um daniel my first question is for you in the in your presentation from the planning staff when you were talking about the 21 um uses um you said some of them were added for issues of equity could you explain that a little bit more yes um so essentially when we look at um land use when we're looking at the uses that are allowable in the zone uh we need to be cognizant of the the different impacts that the including certain uses not including certain uses so when we include uses that allow for congregation that allow for eating of food allow for um individuals to reside there we need to make sure that we as community are not excluding anyone. So making a determination that you can eat here, but only if you pay for it versus something as a social service or as part of a community center, making sure that these, if there's a residential component here that we're allowing for individuals with disabilities or in a rehabilitation context. So the uses added to bring that to 21 along with cleaning up some of those issues was to make sure that we were being consistent that we were really looking at the land use and not the categories and classes of people that may utilize certain services and not be utilizing others okay thank you um nick i have a couple questions for you yes ma'am so one of the questions that has come up is um like the noise barriers mm-hmm um could you talk a little bit more about what might happen to um inhibit the noise sure so generated there already is an existing six foot brick fence that basically surrounds the kind of parking lot area and then another one that is on the interior to the property that kind of surrounds the patio area in talking with board of architectural review there isn't a way to add height to that from a physical standpoint but you can add landscaping and so there is the ability to add like a hedge row that that could be taller than the existing six foot fence we tried to basically add a kind of like a pergola looking thing to attach to the wall and have that run vines up there but they said that that is a basically improper fence that's too high under the historic rules so we can add landscaping but not a physical structure more than what's already there and what's required in the current zone restriction um and then i'm still a little bit trying to wrap my head around the um 509 property and then also the attached residential property is there any my understanding is they all are under the current b1 conditional zone correct um is there any current intent to use the residential property as a part of this plan because i don't see that in so right now it would be a residential unit that we would be able to rent out it's not available for short-term rental it didn't get into a catch-all provision we'd have to go through a conditional use permit if that happened and i have a feeling we know very clearly the neighborhood response to to that kind of possibility so I don't foresee that being a likely option. Okay thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you councilmember Fogle. Thank you chair and I think I'll leave the technical questions to my colleagues. I just would like to contribute by saying these streets and though I hear what you're saying neighborhood and I and your attorney and I was listening intently to both sides but I'm 63 years old and there was a there's some streets called Merlin and Walton and Patterson Merino, North Limestone, Short, Merlin. Second Street, Maxwell, Pine, Patterson. And those streets alone may not mean anything to you, Manchester. But now, if you look at those same streets, they're called Avenue of Champions, Housing for UK Students, Transylvania University, the distillery district. All of those was historic black neighborhoods at one time. But someone saw the future of Rupp Arena and the distilleries district. And I remember the bail house. So many people such as myself who was seeking recovery was welcomed there at one time. And then it started attracting people that didn't quite fit. And so little by little that recovery place kind of dwindled for most of us. Lexington has changed. You know, Davis Bottom, I played softball there for a long time. And our community was community. You talked about on the porch and you talked about barring sugar. I'm talking about neighbors could spank my butt because we had community. But little by little, our community kind of disappeared. And now it's the home of the University of Kentucky, Wildcats. So, Vice Mayor and Council Members, as I sat here and fought tooth and nail about our community changing. And my mother owned Bluegrass Trust House, is where slaves went through in our neighborhood, down in Short and Georgetown, off of those streets. And she bought it for, she purchased it for $3,000. A lot of ironing and rearing other people's children and cooking. And you know it sold for over $600,000 at same house. So I'm just looking at progress and I'm looking at other little, in that community there's like other businesses. I don't know what these young people have for our future that's looking at this property. But I am inclined to your community, and I'm looking at across that community for diversity, and I understand owning your homes for a long time. I didn't quite get the smell of the, like someone said, the smell of the trash. I know I got glad for breeze and that usually kind of knocks that out but so I didn't know what that meant so I'm not I'm just saying if I'm investing in youth and their future and what they see down the line I'm not even saying what my vote is right now because I'm still asking who I serve what is the right way to go but I just wanted to put that out there we didn't think that our community would ever disappear and but the University of Kentucky and all of those housing for all of those students that makes Lexington look beautiful is sitting in our homes so that's all I wanted to say vice mayor thanks thank you council Member Savigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I've just got a quick question for staff on other use restrictions. And one thing that I heard that came from the neighborhood is she showed a picture of basically where the garages were on this property and how she could basically see into the garages. So I appreciate that. Is there a development plan that has been already approved on this property? Is my question, or do they still have to do a development plan that would show? Because I haven't seen where they actually plan to put that thing. Because I would imagine if I had a club, I would want a patio and I would want to have serve out on the patio and have some cocktails on the patio. Yeah, so what you see up on screen here is the color up that was shown at the Planning Commission hearing. So this is a preliminary. So these are the conceptual that kind of go along with any given zone change and are required to accompany the zone change. They will have to go back for a final development plan specifically to show that they are meeting the required landscaping required by ordinance or anything that the Planning Commission feels is necessary in excess of that. so the the landscaping will be addressed at time of final development plan to the satisfaction the Planning Commission as well as the the staff responsible review for reviewing it at that time okay and are we allowed to are we allowed to put a restriction on where a patio lies on that property I don't believe so no okay Cool. That's all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And just so I don't forget it later, thank you all for coming down here and sharing your thoughts with us for a while. Daniel, I think my first few questions are for you. So do you know if there's a residential parking permit on Forest Avenue? Do they have one? I don't believe so, and there's a no parking sign on that side of the street. So it's only parking on one side of the street? Okay. The conversation, when they were talking about the economic change, the staff made a recommendation based off of the information that was shared with them, and the planning commission did as well. Can you talk a little bit about how that conversation went and how you all felt that the burden of proof had been proven? Yeah, so when you're looking at the specific criteria here, it's preponderance. So more likely than not is what you're looking at there. And so as far as economic changes, they spoke to kind of hit every – so in our initial staff report, we asked them to kind of flesh that out with some further information to hit every single industry mentioned on here. They're sort of wrapped up in the umbrella of, you know, antique stores with sort of the various components, but we asked them to kind of break that out and provide us information. So that information ranged from government data. So I believe there was census data or BLS data. There was some anecdotal information, which, once again, is not a full economic study, but it's not required in this instance. So in that, they addressed sort of the decline in the number of firms, the trends to sort of lessening of independent firms and sort of consolidation by larger firms, as well as sort of the impact on the Internet as far as the timeline of these sales. So it was sort of a holistic macro look at some of these conditions and then supplemented by the applicant's comments on what it takes to upkeep this particular structure, which is sort of a unique in its size and location relative to the Bellacord neighborhood there. So holistic look at sort of each of the industries specifically spelled out and kind of how that played into staff's recommendation. And then capacity of the building. do we know what the total capacity is of the building at one particular time what's i would defer that to the the applicant i'm not entirely sure i believe it is 300 total from the fire marshal i don't have that exact number in front of me but in order to get any type of co they would have to look at the type of use look at the structures look at the exits and basically assign a new co as opposed to what the gallery has now so you think 300 is the i think that was that was what our architect looked at and said that's going to be your absolute max for that structure and i have a feeling that we'd never have an event like that just based on how much uh kind of different spaces that we're kind of proposing on those floor plans okay so and then there was some conversation about the parking spaces and how that's not cheered up are there agreements in place in regards to the parking the parking that's not going to be in the neighborhood and be at these specific lots is that how how concrete is that it is it is in cement we have parking agreements for the different properties that go into place we purposely chose multiple different kind of locations and at the time and final development plan we'd have to kind of submit the shared parking number shared parking agreements to planning staff for their review okay okay and then mr wimp mrs winters um there was some talk about buffers today and what what the neighborhood um is interested in regard to buffers have there's have there been some kind of conversation about what is what would be an acceptable buffer what that would look like what height what what would the neighborhood envision as acceptable buffers yes thank you for your question i just like to mention based on our research on the capacity for the building it's right around 1200 so i'm not sure where the disconnects coming in between the 300 state of mind mr nicholson and the 1200 we're being told it's a pretty wide range in terms of buffering there's two different types of buffering there's There's buffering in terms of uses that are going to be permitted at the property adjacent to residential properties. And we have listed, with the exception of number five being stricken as I previously mentioned, in our alternative findings of fact, 16 uses that we believe would be appropriate at the property and provide use buffering. In terms of physical buffering for sounds, we recommended noise abatement and 10 to 15 foot screening that is effective year round at the back and sides of the building. So we believe that the buffering uses that we've alternatively proposed, along with the other use restrictions, the landscaping, the lighting, those things all together would create an appropriate buffer for the commercial uses of this property. Okay, all right. Thank you. I have two more things, but I'll come back, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Vice Mayor, can I correct the statement I just gave? Our architect is watching and texting. Sure, go ahead. The max capacity is 220. 220? Yeah. That's based on architect or fire marshal, you said? The fire marshal is the end all be all, but the architect usually kind of provides the report to the fire marshal and they come in and confirm it. A lot of that has to deal with the amount of entries and exit points and what's open to the public and what's not. Okay, so 220 is your adjusted figure? Thank you. Councilmember Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Daniel, if you could come to the podium. On your way up, it's Tracy Wade, Tracy Jones, excuse me. And Daniel mentioned this, but when we talk about following up on Councilmember James Brown's question about the burden of proof here, and we've heard the phrase preponderance of the evidence. At one point it was said clear preponderance, but clear and preponderance are kind of two different things. preponderance of the evidence as he states means simply more likely than not that's correct so so when we hear the it's a it's a strong phrase but it means that they've proven more likely than not that a major economic or physical social change has occurred to the property such that the conditions are inappropriate is that correct if I'm reading all that correctly yes that you're reading all it correctly that the evidence that's been produced to you all that you've heard, that you've seen, that's been provided to you, convinces you at the end of the day that it's more likely than not that there has been an economic change, social change, physical change to the property that makes the condition no longer viable. And that's what I want to follow through the following through with that change to the property such that the conditions are no longer appropriate. So it's not just that there's been a general change, but that we believe a change that affects that properly substantially so that the conditions are inappropriate. Yes. And I believe, Daniel, you were quoting the Planning Commission's recommendation that says that they believe that those conditions are, in fact, unreasonably restrictive. Yes, that is the, yes. So when the Planning Commission and your staff recommendation came forward, the Planning Commission, to your understanding, that their determination was, that there was a major economic physical or social change such that those conditions were in fact unreasonably restrictive yes so then when they went through this and what's been proposed still restricts the property pretty substantially and i've followed up on a couple council members comments but so there's 48 permitted uses in a b1 zone correct uh i'll have to take a look at the ordinance for the specific but it is a number somewhat close to that so i've got 48 here in the copy yes yeah what you have in front of you is accurate yes and so the applicant proposed approximately 17 uses be released and the planning commission added a few so that they would be recommending release of about 21 conditions so that means that 27 of the 48 conditions in the zone are still restricted would still be restricted on this property that is correct And so I'm looking at some of those, and these are some of the ones that I think our planning staff and our long-term planners look in these neighborhood businesses that are sometimes worrisome. They are still going to restrict funeral parlors, correct? Yes, I believe so. Though Kerr Brothers is only about a couple hundred feet down Main Street. They are going to still restrict medical and dental offices, while I believe if you look directly across the street, across Kentucky, you have a family dentistry practice right across the street. They're going to restrict supermarkets, liquor stores. So it's still very restrictive to things that are even right directly in the proximity of the property. Is that correct? Yes. And so then I'm thinking of some of the things that are being proposed to be offered related to food service and that. So right directly across the street you have Wellington Arms, is that right? I believe right at that corner, if you go right across the street at Forest Avenue, I believe you've got Wellington Arms, which is a mixed-use property with a salon at the bottom. I believe so, yeah. And then just across the intersection you've got the Woodlands that has La Falee Restaurant, though I think it's closed right now. Yes. So I guess what I'm trying to make sure I understand, because you showed a lot of things, that the planning staff and the planning commission believed that this was a mixed-use business, residential, commercial corridor, and that the conditions were so restrictive so that this property could not benefit from those same sorts of uses, and therefore that was unreasonable. Was I interpreting that correctly? And then finally, with my last 30 seconds, I just want to make clear, this use proposed would in no way or any of the uses that are being allowed here would in no way violate the h1 overlay correct yes so the h1 is strictly looking at changes to the structure it there's no use component to that so that no it would not violate any component of the h1 so the old historic home however used according to the h1 overlay must look the same way that it does substantially similar without and you'd have to go to the board of architecture view to make any sort of change that is correct all right thank you vice mayor may have a few come back thank you I have a few questions of my own starting with mr. Crumb staff does the h1 overlay govern interior or internal changes no it does not okay so it's just only substantively on the outside right okay and then we touched on a little bit and And I apologize if I missed it. It was, I think one of my colleagues asked about in the alternate findings of fact that has different and more prohibitive uses and other restrictions. You had touched on the idea that some of these restricted uses were sort of out of our purview. Can you tell us which ones you're talking about? I think there are 10 items here starting with no merchandise for sale, which I think is in the original. Yeah, so looking at business hours, smoking outside the property, the dumpster, and kitchen grease trap prohibitions, and then we put in that as well. And noise abatement. Okay. So those five items you're saying is outside of our purview to dictate or to regulate? Restrict via zoning. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. And then what about in Section B of the prohibited uses? Are those within our purview to adjust or change? Well, the way these conditional zoning restrictions were drafted, and I think Mr. Crumb mentioned this, is the list is a list of uses that are only allowed so there's not really a reason to have a list of prohibited uses so for instance hotels are not really allowed in the B1 zone anyway so we don't need to restrict it short-term rental units again if it's not listed in the 21 or 17 or 16 then it won't be allowed the one that might need clarification would be the sale or provision of wine beer alcoholic beverages under the establishments for the sale of retail merchandise and then I think the staff's recommendation with the Planning Commission for establishments for the retail sale of food products that would normally include packaged wine spirits and beer so if you want to restrict that you would want to make a change to the list. So outside of that item which needs a little bit of clarity those other three items where you're saying essentially is those other three prohibited uses are kind of either redundant or not you don't really need to state that because implicitly you're already not including them. Exactly. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. I have a few questions for Ms. Winters if you don't mind coming up so what we have in front of us is two um i'll make sure i'm correct we have two different proposed findings of facts that you're offering as potential alternatives is that correct yes our position is that this application should be denied okay that the standard has not been met that the removal of the restrictions is not appropriate under the terms of the zoning ordinance but in the spirit of hoping to facilitate conversation the neighborhood has spent a lot of time and effort thinking about what uses could potentially be compatible we've listed the uses again the number five was left on there on accident so that should be stricken but this is the neighborhood's best effort at figuring out what uses could potentially be compatible so we've offered this as an an alternative, we had listed the prohibited uses to avoid a situation where someone might seek a conditional use. And it might be permitted unless it was specifically listed as a prohibited use. So that's why we included those. So. Gotcha. Okay, so you're, just to be clear, the opposition's preference is to deny this conditional use application entirely. And then barring that, you have a compromise position that basically makes some adjustments to the range of uses. Is that correct? It's an argument being made in the alternative so that the council members would be provided with full information from the neighborhood. Okay. And so with that, let me see, one, two, three, looks like six things got struck from the original proposal. And the one that I'm curious about that didn't get struck is banquet facilities. If part of the opposition is the idea that this is going to become sort of an eating establishment slash private club restaurant bar, why did you all leave that one on? The reason we left that on is because the banquet facilities are typically temporary uses and would not impact the neighborhood in the same way. And also the prohibited uses relating to the sale or provision of wine, beer, alcoholic beverages, live entertainment or dancing. Those sorts of additional restrictions would also limit that. So the uses need to be read in conjunction. If the council determines that the listed prohibited uses can't be on there, then the neighborhood would seek to strike 13. Okay. So it has to be read as a whole for it to be the neighborhood purpose. I got you. Taken at face value, your alternative finding effect, leaving the banquet facility in, they can't have live entertainment or dancing, and let's say we can't sell alcohol. It's still going to be a food establishment that serves potentially several hundred people. Does that particular item not concern you in terms of a lot of the concerns and reservations that the neighborhood has in terms of volume of people, cars, trash? A lot of those things still to me feel relevant to those objections. Of course, and that is a very good question. And I have not specifically discussed that particular use with my client, but I would love to invite Megan up to lend her or Becca to- And just to be clear, I just wanted to get clarity on it. Sure, that's a very good question, yes. As a restriction. Yeah, as it was explained to us, the banquet facilities has a different impact. usage so it's not a like a steady operating banquet facility it's like an occasional use so that we may be misunderstanding how that use is actually applied okay thank you very much crossgate to be clear crossgate had occasional events like they used to host parties and art openings and we worked through that as a neighborhood with an occasional event that was something that we were able to support but it's once that becomes every night of the week it becomes more problematic. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any other questions for any of the presenters? All right, seeing none, I'm going to declare this hearing closed. At this point, no further evidence can be taken and council members will deliberate on the evidence we've heard so far. And then at some point, I will entertain motions for findings of fact, either for the existing findings of fact or for new findings of fact. And then we will vote on the underlying ordinance. So, council members, if you wish to speak, please sign in. Floor is open. Council member Savigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just realized my mic was on for a bit. I want to tell the folks who showed up, I really appreciate you showing up. I used to go to church at Good Shepherd, so I actually know what it's like over there sometimes on Sunday mornings. And I actually was around when Z Faulkner's was over there, so I understand it was a different business prior to the current one. I find, council members, that my decision is really focused on whether or not there was a preponderance of evidence. And I lean to the fact that I do believe that retail has changed. And while I think it's unfortunate that people bought a building and didn't get a zone change before they, or didn't get this restriction removed before they bought the building, it doesn't mean that that change did not happen in the 90s. And so I lean towards supporting the applicant in this. I wish there was some more things that I could give to the neighborhood because I do feel like it's a drastic change. It's a change. And I would hate to be, I hate when these situations happen because in my neighborhoods, when neighbors don't get along and yet they're going to be stuck with living together, it's not really a great situation. It doesn't yield good results. I wish the applicant had maybe done a little bit more, and I wish the neighborhood might have been even stronger at pushing meetings and things like that. But other than that, I'm supportive of the applicant. Thanks. Thank you. Any other comments or discussion from council members? Council member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. and thank you to all of our community members who have come out to talk to us on both sides of this issue and also to the hundreds who have engaged about this project in other ways i know that this has been a really intense process with many invested thoughtful and hard-working people involved and i know that all of you want lexington to be the best city that it can be and i share that value with you which is why i do this work and i also appreciate the many perspectives that you all shared about what a vibrant community involves um and also i i want to clarify um a small thing during the last several months i have learned that it may be in some of these neighborhood conversations some of my words have been shared out of context and i want to be clear that as a council member I work hard to be an advocate for my neighborhoods and for my constituents and I seek to be responsive to their questions and represent them well and I know that during a zone change process that's very difficult because we're restrained and for that reason I've been consistently been encouraging business developers to engage with neighborhoods about their projects in a timely way once they have their materials organized whether a zone change is involved or not that's just a best practice so I guess I also want to say that a project like this and I know some of my colleagues may speak about this it really causes us to reflect about the past and the future of Lexington and the resources that we have here and the people we have here to make this an even more creative city we want our communities to evolve we want viable businesses and we want to have third spaces for relationship building and generative placemaking and I think everybody in this room can agree on that but we also want those spaces to preserve quality of life and to balance density and historic neighborhood context and I I do know and you all know this because you live in a downtown neighborhood even those of you without third district residents you're connected to downtown that any new infill project requires compromise and I know that people on both sides of this project have stated as much and I appreciate that and as your council member I want you to know that I hear your concerns connected to what this current change could bring and the balance of opportunity brought by such a change versus the cost to the surrounding area I'm also concerned about unanswered questions that you brought forward here today. We're getting a lot of questions about pedestrian safety, noise, lighting, quality of life, and integration into the neighborhood and I think that we're talking about not just the business plan at hand right now but more importantly we're thinking long-term about future businesses and the neighborhood itself should the removal of conditional zoning restrictions be granted in full. And I want you to know that I understand your questions and I believe that they're valid especially as we balance the past and future needs of our greater community. So if this moves forward as proposed with the Planning Commission finding effects with no changes then I am not in support. So thank you. Thank you Vice Mayor. Thank you. Before I call on my colleagues I want to kind of amplify and add to one of the things you talked about is the idea of kind of how this process works as it relates to relates to engagement because we are kind of the final step for that hearing. After a planning commission hearing and in order to remain impartial, this is why you'll see us not speaking about it and not engaging with the public on this issue. Once it hits the planning commission process, before, during, after, you won't hear us speaking on it because we have to remain impartial and take the evidence as it comes in this hearing. So thank you for that. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think that the concerns of the neighborhood are well taken. Any change is certainly a scary thing. And recently, our very last zone change we just had was a major development next to my own neighborhood. One that will be substantially different than what it sees now. albeit from a farm, it's going to be multi-family housing, commercial corridors. And that was a difficult thing to see that change and accept it, but I did support that because I thought, in my judgment, that that was, while a change can be something we don't want to see, was something that was the best change we could have in that situation. And it's where that property would be viable and my neighborhood would be respected. And I feel similarly here. You know, I think that the economic conditions certainly have changed. The Internet has changed all retail sales without a doubt, but particularly specialized antiques, art, furniture, those sorts of things. And I know that that area has become more and more commercialized. And I know from work that I've done, work that we've all seen, these historic homes, these historic structures on our Main Street corridor and other corridors, if we want them to be preserved we have to give viable uses that make that economically feasible they certainly aren't usable as single-family homes anymore they're not well insulated they're too expensive to maintain and then when the use that they are given a commercial use in a business zone becomes no longer viable we have to look for other options otherwise we could end up with a vacant property sitting right on Main Street and falling in disrepair and so that's where I look to what are we actually looking here today the question do we believe the conditions are too restrictive and inappropriate based on changes in the area both economically socially physically and I believe that they have I think that this property is still going to be restricted such that just like the neighborhood issue that I just had such that it will not be offensive to this neighborhood though it will certainly be change thank you thank you councilmember James Brown thank you vice mayor and I'll say You know, Melcord is a great neighborhood, a strong neighborhood. I think it shows today with all the advocates in that neighborhood that showed up today. And, you know, I think that neighborhood has grown and developed in a way and was protected in a way that I wish some of the neighborhoods that I represented, when I represented the first district, had the protection and the intentionality, especially when it comes to commercial uses that surround those neighborhoods. This development, even though there are some strong concerns, and I think we hear them from the neighbors, I think the developers probably should have been a little more engaging with the neighborhood in this process. But I don't think that opportunity is completely missed if this goes forward. I think there's still an opportunity to work with Bell Court residents to do this development in a way that continues to protect the integrity of this neighborhood. One of my main concerns just from hearing talks about this development was the parking and the traffic. You know, the Bell House is in the middle of this neighborhood. I've been to events where it's been hundreds of people there, and I see the impact that it has on this neighborhood. it this development with the parking arrangement that they shared with us today sounds like that concern may be addressed already I do I do have some concerns depending on what gets presented forward with with some of the the uses taken out that the Planning Commission put forward but I'm willing to depending what motion comes i'm dependent i'm i may be supportive of them just because i know how important the future development of what goes on around this neighborhood is to this community but we have some needs in this in this city that are being addressed in just certain areas that have been taken from the proposed language out of these uses and they and they they're they simply are addressed or they're regarding human services. And I think Council Member Fogle hit on a lot of the points. There's a lot of neighborhoods carrying the brunt of this city. I think we want to intensify uses on corridors. I think this is a way to do that. But I would encourage the developer going forward to be more engaging and reach out to this neighborhood if this goes forward. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Any other comments from Council? Councilmember Fogle. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to echo Councilmember Brown and for the developers. There's nothing like building relationships in an area that you're going to go into. I am a little disappointed about the transparency. the person that presented the timeline, that startled me with the big gaps and community not having a big input. I think that's where the hurt comes from. When you leave a neighborhood out engaging in something that you wanna build or develop, those are some bruised ribs. And I can feel you on that one. And so I just wanted to echo everything everyone has said here. And just moving forward, please, please engage this neighborhood. That's the heartbeat of this historic neighborhood of these folks sitting here. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from council members? Any other discussion? At this point I will entertain a motion regarding findings of fact, either a motion to adopt the Planning Commission's finding of fact or to determine new findings of fact. Councilmember Brown, will you be clear on what you're moving? The findings of, I move that we accept the findings of facts from the Planning Commission. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. We have a second. Discussion on this motion. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. With the findings of facts, and now I guess my question is to the Planning Commission, In regards to the screening and buffering, is there an opportunity to add that to the fines and the facts? Or to the motion? Well, there's a provision as it exists about the parking lot and screening. There isn't another provision about that, so you would have to advise as to what you would want that to be. and then you would have to add that as an additional conditional zoning restriction, which you are allowed to do screening and buffering as a conditional zoning restriction. Would it have an impact on the H1 to just simply say 10 to 15 feet on three sides of? Well, I mean, two things to consider in regard to that. But I don't know, I think that's part of the reason why it was left is it was from the planning commission to be submitted on a final development plan. I don't know if it could be accommodated that amount. I'm not sure. And then secondly, as you heard earlier, the Board of Architectural Review is indicating that they are not going to allow that to be in the form of a fence or a wall because they think that doesn't meet with the historic restrictions and architectural features of this historic particular site. But if we add the language, can it be on the onus of the developer to provide it in whatever way makes sense and is approved from the overlay, whether it's landscaping or any other means? The only thing that I would caution you about is if you direct it to be in a specific way and they can't meet it, then they're going to have to come back to you to have it changed or removed because the Planning Commission can't change or alter a conditional zoning restriction. So just simply saying 10 to 15 feet of screening and buffering, would that be restrictive in a way that it would come back to us? Probably. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know what the site configurations are at this point. I know we had a motion on the floor. Oh, we have a motion on the floor, but it looked like Mr. Nicholson popped up to say something. I don't know if he has any more information about what they can accommodate on their site. So to clarify one concern, there's an existing, in the back it's nine feet. There's a courtyard wall and there's a brick wall that goes around the entire property. the courtyard wall which is where we have a foot of will you we come to the mic and start that over so we have it on record there are two different kind of walls that are currently on the site there's one that basically goes around the property itself which is subject to the first uh conditional zoning or second conditional zoning restriction that's currently on the property um that requires it to be there and then there's a second kind of a wall that's around any of the usable space around the house itself yeah i guess my concern is to address the neighbor's initial concern about additional screening um so the the i guess the the blanket 10 to 15 would basically remove the parking lot that exists today that that would be the only concern and without having a specific type of screening i don't know how we could basically meet that condition and also meet the historic preservation kind of guidelines okay that's where we're in a rock and hard place there but without a doubt you all have the authority to increase the required screening as part of the conditional zoning restriction power okay Trisha you got something additional well I mean I'm not I'm not sure if you're talking about height or width height i was thinking i was thinking height but is it is the original intent meaning width i think width is what is potentially going to cause the the potential problem in terms of if you require a 15 foot wide buffer in screening and then they go back to the planning commission and on the development plan they can't create that so they have to change it they can't ask ask the Planning Commission to change it they have to ask you all to change it so I'll be here again so maybe I should have been more clear I was thinking about 10 or 15 foot in height not necessarily with no I think there's some additional questions to the motion so I will relinquish thank you councilmember LaGree thank you vice mayor I have a similar question would this be the appropriate place or would we be able to miss jones add an amendment to prohibit outside bars speakers or music of any kind i understand that could be addressed within a development plan but is would we be able to add that also into this finding of fact the the fine the conditional zoning restrictions that you all are authorized to impose by statute relate to use screening buffering and architectural features in a historic district which this is so i i i'm not sure that that meets one of those things um you know if you want to impose that restriction um yes you can make that amendment and we can can see what happens with it. But I would just caution you that limiting particularly things like with wording like all music is a little bit worrisome to me in terms of fitting within those authorized restriction permissions in the statute. OK, thank you for that clarification. It's my understanding, and if it's not inappropriate, I'm sorry to ask this here. but is it accurate that in the development plan there is a prohibition against outdoor speakers there is currently and what would that mean for any future use would that only go with this particular development plan well any any change to the development plan if it's considered to be substantial which that would probably be has to go back to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission would have to change the development plan so it would continue to stay whatever development final development plan is adopted is what governs the property. Okay I see thank you very much that addresses my question. Thank you. Councilmember Gray. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just need some clarification. So are we still speaking about Council Member Fred Brown's motion? We are. Okay. And Council Member Other Brown, James Brown's motion, the Other Brown, that's gone. We are no longer speaking about that, correct? not another motion on the table or his aside from there was not an amendment proposed okay yeah it was this i think both the comments uh speak to potentially creating a motion he was asking about the possibility of it but i don't believe just to clarify council member brown you did not make a motion to amend we don't know what he did all right yeah so so would it so i may have convoluted the conversation when I said buffer, but have 10 to 15 foot screening around the property. Council Member Brown, let me go back to Council Member Brown and let her finish. Yeah, go ahead. Excuse me, sir. Well, then I'll come back after, because it depends on what Brown says. So I'm coming off the mic. Okay. Council Member James Brown. All right. Screening, 10 to 15 foot screening in regards to height. Are you talking about trees or are you talking about structural? Maybe if we just say screening, does that leave it flexible enough that it's something that they can work through with the H-1 and the development plan? I guess I don't want to box them into where it's something that can't be done and it's not acceptable. There may be a way, although as I say this, I'm reluctant to do so, but I will say it anyway. There may be a way to word it in such a way that the condition is dependent on the ability to, as it would be permitted on the final development plan and as it would be authorized by the Board of Architectural Review. But that sort of makes it very contingent on two other bodies and what they may or may not want to do. And I go back to the original of if you do something, I mean, if you all put that in there, I'm not saying you can't. You absolutely can. But if you do and they can't do it, then their choices are to either alter their plan in such a way that it either cuts back their parking lot or they don't get approval from the BOAR. And then they have to make a decision of whether or not they want to come back and ask you to modify that again, if that makes sense. I just, I don't know how to tell you in terms of, it would be their choice if they can't meet what you impose to determine if they're going to come back and ask you to change that. But if we know going forward that that is going to be dealt with at the final development plan or dealt with at the Board of Architectural Review, I don't know if you want to try to restrict that in such a way that either one of those decisions makes them come back to you. Council Member Worley, are you about to help? Help me. I'm trying to, yes. Go ahead. So I guess the question is, the ordinance itself has landscaping requirements between uses and adjacent properties, correct? And I don't know, you may not be able to speak off the top of your head, but typically, as I remember, it's so many trees on the so many center, and they have to be at least six to eight feet tall or whatever. I don't know exactly what that is. But I know the ordinance already has this sort of screening contemplated. That is correct. And because these are different zones, there is that component that's part of the landscaping regulations. And that has to be considered at the time of the final development plan. And the planning commission has ultimate authority to decide whether they are satisfied, whether that is... The ordinance would have a minimum threshold, but then the planning commission would have to then decide whether they think the minimum threshold is enough to meet... That is correct. Okay. So, in other words, if you all impose something with a conditional zoning restriction, you're imposing that on top of what is already in our zoning ordinance or in our landscaping sub-regulations. So, in trying to help here, is there anything that, without being so specific and creating two different bodies, potentially conflicting with us and coming back, is there some way to make more clear that the Planning Commission is to do something more, or is that something that's already built into the ordinance in the process? that will have to be taken into consideration at final development plan stage. Well, I think that item C talks about screening from Forest Avenue and landscaping that should be shown on a development plan. So potentially you're already requiring them to look at that when it goes back to them on a final development plan. So that is in the findings. That's already a specific issue that the Planning Commission, if these are approved, would be directed to take into consideration. It's letter C under the zoning restrictions that were listed in the recommendations sent forward to you from the Planning Commission. Okay. Thank you. I don't know if it helped. I think that I'm trying to get us further along and get people to feel more comfortable with the issue of the screening. But I also know that it's already built in, and if we tinker with it too much, do we actually cause both the neighborhood and the applicant more trouble? And so that's what I'm trying to avoid and thinking it may already be in place. But I don't think I really solved our issue for us. I think I just solved it. Thank you. Colleagues, any more discussion on Councilmember Fred Brown's original motion, which I will restate, is to accept the findings of fact from Planning Commission. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. You did, Tracy, say that we could put some conditions, and how did you put the wording in there on the screen? Because you said we could keep it such that they could attempt to try to do it or look at it. What was the wording you used? I think if you put a, well, let me say, based on what you've heard, it sounds like if you put a width or depth restriction on landscaping, it's going to impact the existing parking lot structure. So whether or not you want to do that is up to you. If you want to do it with height, then I guess the question would be, you know, that you want to create a buffer in height up to this amount as it would be permitted on a final development plan inconsistent with the findings of the Board of Architectural Review? Could you slow down a little, please? Okay. I think you could put, although, you know, somebody's going to have to interpret what this means, so I just want everybody to be aware going forward. You know, you're creating another layer to be interpreted, but if that's what you wanted to do you could say you know a buffer or screening if up to 15 feet in height as could as to be approved on a final development plan by the Planning Commission and to be consistent with the findings of the Board of Architectural Review I'm jotting down could you go through it one more time so make sure I get the motion correct here a buffer or screen up to to 15 feet in height that could be approved by the planning commission on a final development plan. And consistent with findings of the Board of Architectural Review. Can I make that as a motion? It would be an amendment to add that condition. Well, you may want to amend. Number C. C to say that. Would that be appropriate now? I think it would be best to do it now if if you know be so that it would be part of the motion that you're then going to approve which is the recommendation of Planning Commission. In that case Vice Mayor and we'll make sure get the language right here I would amend number C to add in screening buffer up to 15 feet in height as we approved by the the Planning Commission and on a final development plan on the final development plan and consistent to be consistent with findings of the Board of Architectural Review and be consistent with the findings of the Board of Architectural Review Board of Architectural Review so moved all right we have a second from Councilmember Plumman this go ahead Councilmember Orley I should point it for clarification I believe that the council member was intending to add that after the existing C not to replace the existing C. That was my understanding. That would be my understanding because they're different. Thank you. All right we're going to open up the floor to discussion on the amendment to the original motion the amendment made by Councilmember Ellinger. Councilmember Sevigny. No? Okay. Any discussion on this amendment? Okay, the amendment will also require a roll call vote, I assume? I'm sorry. Does the amendment require a roll call vote or just a voice vote? A roll call vote. Okay, seeing no more discussion, all those in favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay, can I see hands real quick of the no's? I think you need to do a roll call vote on this one. Yeah. We got enough foes, let's bring up the screen, thank you. I was trying to play it safe. Council member Gray? Vice Mayor, can I hear that back? I'm going to have the law redo it just so they get it correct. Thank you. Okay, I think I'm going to tell you what, I wasn't writing it down. So I think it's a 15 foot screen or buffer. In height. In height, or up to 15 feet in height screen or buffer to be approved by the planning commission on a final development plan and to be consistent with findings of the Board of Architectural Review. Exactly. Okay, now that we have that clarity, let's go ahead and do a roll call vote. Council Member Legree? Yes. Council Member Menardez? No. Council Member Plowman? Yes. Council Member Reynolds? Yes. Council Member Sevigny? Yes. Council Member Sheehan? Yes. Council Member Worley? No. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. Council member Fred Brown? No. Council member James Brown? Yes. Council member Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Council member Fogle? No. And council member Gray? Yeah. All right, that motion passes. We are back to discussion on the amended motion. So it's the original, accepting the original findings of fact from Planning Commission with the amendment made by Council Member Ellinger. Council Member Savigny. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have one more question. Okay. And this is, it's B, it's 3B, and it's no merchandise for sale but displayed on the building's porch and front or side yards. My question is there and I'm just going to give you my general thoughts. If my business were on Main Street and I'm running a club, I would prefer to have my business front yard facing. I think it would also be supportive of the neighbors who live behind it and on the sides of it. So I don't know, but I would propose to strike that. But I'd rather have the developer and the neighbors say if that be helpful or not. So if you would rather have their patio in the back or- It's merchandise. Yeah, but merchandise is booze and food, correct? Why would they want to be in the front? Technically. I mean, we're getting in the weeds here, but, which is never a good idea, as I may just say, but, if you're talking about the serving of food, like, that's one thing. If you're talking about the selling of, like, I don't know, somebody's making. kind of bread and you're putting it on your front porch for sale that's what is being limited here is merchandise for sale i'm fine i'm fine with leaving it where it is point of order chair we're getting into development plan activity here and we're not that's not our purview i was just going to move to strike that that was all i was doing yeah so i'm okay with the i'm okay with the discussion because we're leading up to a potential amendment of the original um motion so i'll allow it and i'm not interested if nobody else is interested thank you thank you any other discussion on the amended motion seeing none let's bring up a roll call vote please the the amended the right the motion as amended yeah correct with the amendment findings Council member Ellinger. Do we need to, was that a material change? Do we need to do another first reading? Just the findings of fact. Will we have to do that though? I don't think you need new findings of fact because I think the findings of fact already supported above. Okay, thank you. Thank you. But I think you might need a roll call vote for this one. Yep. Councilmember Legree? No. Councilmember Menares? Yes. Councilmember Plumman? Yes. Councilmember Reynolds? Yes. Councilmember Sevigny? Yes. Councilmember Sheehan? Yes. Councilmember Worley? Yes. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. Councilmember Fred Brown? Yes. Councilmember James Brown? Yes. Council member Ellinger? Yes. Council member Fogle? Yes. Council member Gray? Yes. Thank you, that motion passes. We're going to move on to the ordinance as proposed. I will now entertain a motion to approve. Second. Council member Savigni made the motion. Council member Menara has made the second. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, let's bring up a roll call vote, please. Council Member Legree? No. Council Member Menares? Yes. Council Member Plowman? Yes. Council Member Reynolds? Yes. Council Member Sevigny? Yes. Council Member Sheehan? Yes. Council Member Worley? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. Council Member Fred Brown? Yes. Council Member James Brown? Yes. Council Member Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Council Member Fogle? Yes. And Council Member Gray? Yes. Thank you very much, that motion passes. Thank you everyone for coming out and showing up and thank you to our staff for doing all the work. We are adjourned. We'll be right back. I came back, settled down Where they put me in the ground This is my town Yeah, this is my town