Thank you. ...to construct a storage warehouse on this particular piece of property. So just to orient everyone, this right here is the subject property shown white in the center of the screen. This is Alexandria Drive as it heads up out of town. The property is located at the intersection, essentially at the intersection of New Circle and Alexandria. So there's an overpass that Alexandria passes under. And this property really was created as a result of right-of-way for New Circle Road. And the roadway improvements out there left this small parcel of AR less than half an acre in size as sort of as a remnant piece. So it has agricultural rural zoning despite it being within the urban services area. So this red line running down the center line of Alexandria Drive is the urban services area boundary. So this is in the urban portion. However, it has that agricultural zoning that the applicant is seeking to change. In the immediate vicinity on the opposite side of New Circle Road, we have single family residential development. But to the rear of the property is a light industrial development that was rezoned in the early 2000s in order to develop sort of an industrial development to the rear. So that is still sort of being fleshed out and developed, but the applicant is seeking to match that light industrial zoning at this particular location. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property. So once again, Alexandria Drive, New Circle Road, and then we have Enterprise Court, which serves these industrial parcels to the rear. There's never been anything built on this particular parcel due to the constraints and the size and its particular location. Here we have the development plan for the subject property. It shows an access easement, so no direct access from Alexandria, but rather is proposing future access easements to tie into the industrial developments driveway. They are showing a single storage building, 6,300 square feet. The applicant has indicated that this is primarily going to be for personal use. So the amount of parking that is being proposed is very limited. The scope is limited, but he's essentially seeking to change this from an AR to an I-1 in order to accommodate the storage use primarily for personal. So staff, in review of this application, instead of a typical argument with the place builder due to the constraints on the site, the fact that it's really separated from most everything and it doesn't have any real contiguousness with the AR development, The applicant has opted in lieu of making a place-build argument or agreement with a comprehensive plan. They are able to make an argument that the current zone, agricultural-rural, is inappropriate, and the proposed zone, I-1, is appropriate. So based on the size of the parcel, it not being large enough to effectively farm, being ill-suited to residential uses, separated from most of residential development. Staff found that this, in fact, was inappropriate, and the proposed zoning matches the zoning that's adjacent to, and it sort of serves that extension of those types of uses was more appropriate. We are recommending a single conditional zoning restriction. It's also found on the adjoining parcel, and that is prohibiting advertising signs, so essentially billboards, but otherwise would allow the other light industrial uses in the zone but once again this is sort of a limited project proposed for a storage warehouse for personal use and it requires an I-17 to do it so staff is recommending approval subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan that mr. Martin will be on to discuss momentarily I'd be happy to answer any questions you have of staff at this time yeah any questions One quick one. Testing, testing. Yeah, here we go. Okay. I noticed that the applicant has not indicated any public outreach, but you all have gone along already. What's the? Yeah, so the applicant here, so the, here we go. So we do have this parcel here. The property owner in this case, or the applicant in this case, also is the owner and developer of these adjoining parcels to the rear. So they've had conversations with them. Essentially, there hasn't been any larger sort of public outreach efforts from them. I know they've had some conversations with the surrounding area, and that's some information that the applicant should provide moving forward. But we still felt kind of within that that overall it met the criteria that they were kind of applying for. So we are encouraging them to do as much as possible. But this is a little bit of an interesting circumstances where they are sort of their own development there. Okay, not seeing anything else. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Members of the committee, the plan that you have before you today is a preliminary development plan because it's a zone change. You will see a final development plan on the property. It is, of course, as Daniel described, a pretty simple situation. You can see, again, this remnant piece, a nice triangular piece, nice geometry, considering it's a remnant piece. You have a 6,500-square-foot storage building proposed, parking in this area to serve the building. access is through the adjoining property and out to the existing road into the industrial area. It was made very clear to the applicant that access to Alexandria would be very problematic in this location. And so to accommodate those concerns, they have been working with the adjoining property owner to get access into their property from the existing private road that serves the industrial area. Again, it's pretty simple. They have a sidewalk that they're proposing as well. A little bit of improvements along Alexandria. And it was reviewed by your subdivision committee this morning and recommended for approval. Happy to answer any questions you may have about the plan. Was there any discussion of the bank of trees that are shown along the... We did not get into any real discussion about the trees. At the final development plan, I think we'll be looking for a tree protection plan and how they will deal with that. Do we have any further questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Murphy. I'm Dick Murphy, representing the applicant. Bill McAlpin is with me as well. I don't have too much to add to what the staff said on this. This is an orphan piece of land. It was under different ownership from Enterprise Industrial Park. I think otherwise it probably would have been rezoned 25 years ago when Enterprise Industrial Park was. It was actually part of the track that most of it's now on the other side of New Circle Road. Nothing's happened on this property for 60 years. Bill has negotiated an access easement over to Enterprise Court, so we don't have direct access to Alexandria Drive. Sort of an interesting thing about this is we are sort of isolated. Of course, we have the big right-of-way of New Circle Road, which is elevated above us. As you know, you go under New Circle Road on Alexandria Drive when you're going out there. Plus, the Alexandria Drive right-of-way here is surprising. It's 100 feet from center line over to our property line. And it's a really wide right-of-way, so there's some green space through there, which is actually a right-of-way, which really cuts down the size of this parcel. So I really didn't have much more to add, so I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. I don't think nobody's here to speak beside the applicant, so we'll bring it back. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Poole? No, I think Mr. Poole. Oh, okay, go ahead. No, that's all right. Are you going to make a motion? Move to approve PLNMAR 24-3, William E. McAlpin. Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And move to approve PLN-MJDP 24-7 Alexandria Storage. We don't have to do that. Oh, there's a subdivision. There's a subdivision. When we get there on two Thursdays, we'll do it. Just ahead of the game a little bit. That's fine. All right. So moving on to our next item, this is a rezoning request by Red Draw Development, LLC. This is a request to change the property at 766 Paradise Lane from a single-family residential to a medium-density residential R4 zone. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to expand a proposed multifamily residential development. The applicant, in their discussion of the place type and development type, have chosen an enhanced neighborhood and a medium-density residential. This mirrors what they chose previously when they developed or rezoned the properties to the north. Staff agrees that both of these can be appropriate at this time. So just to locate the subject property, it is this piece of land here outlined in white. Here we have Liberty Road in the vicinity as well as New Circle Road. The property currently is accessed through Paradise Lane, which is a local road, a very substandard, so it does not have full improvements on the right-of-way. This same property was attempted to be rezoned earlier in this past year to the townhouse residential zone. That application was ultimately withdrawn due to primarily concerns with utilizing a substandard roadway, Paradise Lane, for the sole access to the site. So the applicants have incorporated this parcel into a proposal for multifamily to the north that was rezoned in the past year as well. So 2156, 2176, and 2184 Liberty Road were a part of a multifamily residential development, or are proposed to be a part of a multifamily residential development. This would incorporate the parcel in with it. Other land uses in the surrounding area are primarily single-family residential, so existing R1B with much of the residential that is served off of Wilderness Road and Paradise Lane. As you go further down Liberty Road, those land uses intensify and you get a kind of a greater mixing of uses. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property. So it currently contains a single-family residence. And once again, Paradise Lane, as you can see, does not fill out the full right-of-way. So it is not the full width. It is not the full kind of standards needed to meet the current safety standards. It is proposed to be incorporated with these three parcels as indicated previously. so much of the same product that was mentioned during the previous rezoning but we'll bring up the development plan shortly to illustrate some of that. Here we have the development plan for the subject property. So much of the design has remained unchanged so essentially this portion, so the upper two-thirds or so of the design in front of you remains largely the same. So this is a three-story multifamily residential product. Essentially, this request increases the number of units from 168 to 216. So they're adding these two units further to the south, as well as providing a connection at the end of Paradise Lane. This is, at the moment, proposed to be emergency-gated, emergency-access only. Those conversations on how that will be terminated is part of the conversations with the subdivision committee, as well as questions about fire access and safety with the current kind of status of Paradise Lane. But much of the same design as seen in the initial request with centralized amenities in the middle, parking kind of provided in the center with units reinforcing Liberty Road. Liberty Road is slated to be widened and improved within the next couple of years, so that right-of-way is reflected on there, so that will provide some additional connectivity, safety improvements, trails, and the like. When it came to the justification for this application, much of the information, the justification, was sort of pulled from the previous request. This is a little bit problematic, though, because the previous request was approved at a time where we weren't fully utilizing the current comprehensive plan. So much of the information cited, responded to, and built into the justification for this site provided by the applicant is using the 2018 information, which, while similar in many key regards, is not the updated comprehensive plan that was approved. So staff is recommending actually postponement at this time so that the applicant can fully flesh out how they're meeting the most up-to-date standards. They can provide more information about the multifamily design standards, which the information they provided wasn't sufficient to really demonstrate that they were meeting these in a meaningful way. in addition they should also provide some information relative to the parking so the amount of parking that they've provided on the site hasn't increased so they provide the parking demand mitigation study so providing some context on you know this is the same project project type as before but we're seeing kind of a less dense product because of it and an increase in the surface parking so as as they look to retool their justification to make sure that they are addressing the correct things that is still an outstanding item that staff would like some information on the applicant indicated in their letter of justification they sent us a notice of a neighborhood meeting that they conducted they haven't provided us with any information since then on the outcome of that meeting or how that meeting went or concerns from the neighbors so still some information that that needs to be provided but they did provide notice that at least one neighborhood meeting was attempted to be scheduled so we're seeking more information on that as well but at this time staff is recommending postponement of the zone change portion and as always mr. Martin will be on directly to discuss the corresponding development plan thank you mr. Crone do we have any questions thank you sir mr. Martin Members of the committee, the plan that you see before you that Daniel has explained very well to you is a preliminary development plan. Again, you will see a final development plan on this property should the zone change go forward. As Daniel described, they continued the perimeter placement of the buildings, maintaining interior parking, green space. These are the amenities for the entire project. 216 total units. There's, I believe, 350-so bedrooms. These are one- and two-bedroom apartments, three stories, 50 feet in height. Now, you can see open areas here. They've distributed open areas throughout the site. Daniel mentioned Paradise Lane. They are currently showing Paradise Lane coming into the site to be gated emergency. there has been discussions about improving Paradise so that the fire trucks can actually drive down in Paradise Lane as necessary. The applicant has been talking a little bit with the government and with our sanitary sewer people. There's a pump station right here. Now, that was part of a public project. Government went here and sewered this neighborhood and put in a pump station to serve the area. They're hoping to remove that pump station, take it offline. That's a good thing. If you don't need a pump station, you don't want them. They require maintenance and that's the way. Run their line up and under Liberty Road to another line across the road. That's the current negotiations, what they're talking about to solve that particular problem. They're kind of keeping in their back pocket the possibility that they could use that maintenance road that belongs to the government, of course that required agreements and that sort of thing, as an access, an emergency access into this property. And again, at the final development plan, they will be fleshing that out, and you'll receive knowledge of exactly what direction and how they intend to achieve these things. They have detention in this area. They're talking to the school board. Apparently the school board is doing work and reevaluating a new design on their basin. There's a very good chance that they can cooperate and work together and handle their stormwater in that particular area as well. So your subdivision committee did review the plan this morning, and they did recommend approval of the plan to you. And I would add, you know, it's called Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, but it kind of drops down and it's low in there. There's irony in that. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I love your statements, too. So, any questions? Nope. Thank you, sir. Mr. Davis said Pleasant Valley. He said really called it Pleasant Valley. Pleasant Valley. Yes. That sounds like a song. It's a Sunday, isn't it? Pleasant Valley Sunday. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. As Tom mentioned, one of the concerns was secondary access to the site to accommodate emergency vehicles. So we are currently looking into that. The current road is Paradise Lane. It's substandard. One option would be to widen that to 20 feet And the fire department has agreed that that would be the minimum that they would accept And then we would have to put some type of turnaround at the end So that's one thing we've got to think about The other one, as Tom mentioned, was if this pump station if we are able to take it offline, that land is owned by the city and it does access Wilderness Lane. So if the city does not need that land anymore, that's something we could look into possibly using that as access in lieu of Paradise Lane. It's a lot shorter distance, and Wilderness Road is already a better road. As far as the staff recommendations on the zone change, there's, let's see, five items listed. We've already started to address these items. Number one was the meeting with the neighbors. We did file or we did have a meeting when we filed with the neighbors, notified everybody in the notification area. Two people showed up and they worked against it. They said the only thing they didn't want to see there was townhomes, which was what was presented on Paradise Lane under another zone change. So they were happy that that wasn't happening. But we did not hear from anybody else. Items 2, 3, and 4 are kind of similar in that they're things we need to update in our justification related to the 2045 comprehensive plan. So we're already starting to work on those. And I'm sure, Daniel, we may have to come back and review this before we finally turn it in. Item number five, this is the parking demand modification study. We did add more units, and we've also changed the mix. Before it was one bedrooms and two bedrooms, and now we've added some threes in there as well. Not a lot, but anyway, because of all this, we will be updating the parking demand mitigation study, and we'll turn that in, give the staff plenty of time to review that before the hearing. Other than that, I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. So we bring it back to the commission. I think we had a recommendation of postponement. It would sound like Mr. Carter is going to be providing some of that necessary information for the big meeting. So just bring it back. The floor is open for a meeting. I meant meeting. The floor is open for a vote. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move that we support the staff's recommendation for postponement for the reasons provided by staff Related to PLNMAR 24-24 Red Draw Development, LLC. Okay, thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Crum, PLNMAR 24-5. All right. So here we have our last rezoning item of the day. So this is a request by Jenny Talbot to rezone the property at 592 Eureka Springs Drive. This is a request to convert office space, so a P1 zone, into a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone. The subject property is under half an acre in size, and the applicant is wishing to establish or convert that structure into a multifamily residential development. The letter of justification submitted by the applicant identified this as an enhanced neighborhood. Staff is in agreement. They characterized it as medium density. Staff feels it's closer to low density. However, it has the same effect. Both are being recommended in this particular place type, and so we have reviewed it and find that it meets the criteria for low-density residential development. But we'll get on to that in a moment. So here we have the subject property, which is on Eureka Springs, which is this circular road just orienting you to the immediate vicinity. We have Richmond Road further up, Alumni here, and then Man of War to the east. So it's serving this internal commercial area that adjoins existing areas of residential. So subject property here has had kind of a number of zoning changes. This was all originally agricultural land that was rezoned to AU and then became residential. It previously had R3 zoning, but the applicant back in the 70s or the 80s, rather, decided to try to develop this as a professional office site. So they successfully rezoned this parcel to the P1 zone and established an office use. In the surrounding vicinity, we have the B1. So this is the ICE center. This is a small convenience store. And then the mix around it is a mix of different residential types, primarily single-family residential and duplexes. So existing residential area, the applicant is seeking to convert this from professional office to residential to match. So here you can see the subject property and its relationships. So once again, ICE Center, commercial building, and then the subject property itself where they're wanting to essentially eliminate the professional office uses. Right now there's three apartments above vacant professional office space in the P1 zone. As long as you've got that first floor of offices, you're allowed to incorporate residential. They are wanting to go strictly residential and increase the number of units from three to a total of eight. Here is the development plan for the subject property, so really keeping a lot of the aspects the same. This is going to kind of utilize the existing structure. A small addition is planned, so two additional units are proposed at the end, so bringing it from the six proposed in the existing structure to on the end to a total of eight. Parking is going to be provided in the location of existing parking areas. They are showing a reduction, it looks like, in the amount of vehicular use areas, So converting some of that into more open space, programmable space, that's sort of called for within the comprehensive plan. As far as meeting the objectives of the comprehensive plan, this is providing sort of additional density, additional residential units in a manner that is sort of in keeping with the surrounding character. So this is still going to be two stories of residential. It's not going to change really much of the built form of the structure. And so when we're looking at this, despite it being kind of a smaller scale reuse in an existing building, the applicants still had to demonstrate that they were meeting the multifamily design standards as best as possible. So the structure itself is going to remain. So we have the existing brick building here. So it'll be more of a existing conversion to those units on the ground floor. And the addition is going to be primarily to the rear. So the relationship with much of the front of the site is going to remain the same. The way they are meeting the multifamily design standards is really through programming or reducing the amount of vehicular use area, so additional open space, programming it more efficiently, and then reutilizing that viable structure in order to provide a kind of a slight increase in density in an area that has sort of a mix of different residential types. So with this, staff is recommending approval. We find it's agreements with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan as well as the corresponding policies. Once again, providing additional density in a kind of neighborhood context way, increasing the amount of tree canopy and green space on the site, meeting those kind of requirements. We also find it's agreement with the development criteria, meeting the land use, transportation connectivity and walkability, environmental sustainability and resiliency, site design and building form criteria. As always this is subject to the corresponding development plan that Mr. Martin will go over momentarily but staff is recommending approval at this time one note with the once again with public outreach this particular area while having kind of a significant residential presence does not have any active neighborhood associations in the immediate vicinity and so the applicant has indicated to us that they are going to be attempting to conduct a meeting between now and the hearing and provide notice to those surrounding areas, but there isn't a centralized neighborhood association within any of the 500 feet kind of associated with that. So that's just some information on their public outreach. The applicant can provide some more information on that, but staff is overall recommending approval and would be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff. Thank you, Mr. Crump. I don't think we have any questions, so good job. Mr. Martin. members of the committee the plan that Daniel showed you that we have here before us today is once again a preliminary development plan they'll come back with the final Daniel as you can see has already explained the only significant change is that they're adding a future addition onto the plan to the existing building. They are going to utilize the existing parking area. They are planning a future patio here in the rear. Now this particular plan, fairly simple with the building and the access. It has a lot of cleanup conditions on it. They need to clean it up. There's some information missing, that sort of thing. It's all pretty standard stuff. It just needs to be cleaned up. There's some unnecessary notes, copyright information. Dimensions are missing. These are types of things that are required on a plan. They're going to have to clean that up. They have a nice area, picnic area for open space here in the rear as well. There's a large KU easement that runs through the property, And one of the conditions is to clarify that lower boundary. There's just so much, a lot of line work and all that on the plan. We want to be sure that that easement is clearly defined. It's necessary information. It's one of the ways we look for conflicts and that sort of thing on a plan. So they need to clean that up. One item that was discussed is particularly the land use buffer requirements. Property, excuse me. They have plenty of room, apparently, particularly in the rear, and they can have room here to meet it. The future patio is encroaching into what would be the required width. Now, Article 18 allows options. And so if they utilize a fence and other materials, they can reduce, and you all have heard this before, they can reduce the width of the buffer, which is their intent to do. But they'll need to clarify that is their intent on this plan. And then, of course, we'll see that on the final development plan should the zone change be approved. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have on the plan. I see any, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Applicant? Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Chris Clendenin. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Jenny Talbot. I would just say initially that Mr. Crum and Mr. Martin have done a good job presenting what this project is. As Mr. Crum mentioned, this is an existing building, and currently the first floor, which is supposed to be professional office, is vacant, and it's been vacant for a while. The applicant tried to get various tenants in there that would meet the criteria for professional office, was unsuccessful. She currently has three apartments on the second floor that are in use. The goal here is to convert this. The P1 zone, as Mr. Crumb pointed out on the map, is just kind of an orphan zone in the surrounding area. It's B1 and a mixture of residentials. She'd like the opportunity to just go multifamily with this project. And we would be increasing, it would be a case of infill. We would be increasing the density, going from the current three units to a total of eight. And I think it's a better use of the land. As Mr. Martin pointed out, there's some issues that need to be cleaned up on the plan, which I think mostly have been addressed. Those things will be submitted to staff well in advance of the hearing. So aside from that, if you have any questions, I'm happy to address those. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Bring it back to the commission. Floor is open. I have a question for staff going back. In this particular instance, there was a lot of cleanup and things that needed to be done, but you recommended approval. On another one that we just looked at, there was a lot of cleanup that was done and we decided to postpone. What's the difference? Yeah. Yeah, so there's sort of the difference on the way sort of zoning is handled as far as cleanup conditions versus sort of on Tom's end. So when we're looking at cleanup on a development plan, those are more of a clerical nature, and you still get the full intent and breadth of a plan. When you have issues on the justification side of things, staff's not able to fully evaluate your project, we're not talking about meeting the same goals and objectives. So the first is to make sure that we're all on the same page on the zoning side, because Mr. Martin is operating as if this zone is already in place. So really clarity of information and kind of the involvement that is needed on the zoning information side for staff to evaluate is the reason why, one instance, we have a postponement and we don't. In this case, the applicant provided the necessary information on the zoning side to meet that threshold. Thank you. Good explanation. I'll be happy to. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMAR 24-5, Jenny Talbot. Thank you, sir. With the conditions provided by staff. We got a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Pohl. Thank you. Any further discussions to that motion? Hearing none, please vote with your right hand if you're for it. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Yes, sir. Bill Clause Bullseyes. Dick is the only gentleman here that remembers Bill Clause. He was our director. He was our director. He was our director. He was our director. He was our director. He was our director. He became very well-known in playing service as a consultant. But that was actually a form. That was a form. Good. Great. But when you talk. Yeah, we'll just need you to repeat that entire statement again. This morning. But moving on to. It's a short version. Yeah. It's not going to get. Mr. Chair, moving on to the last item of our agenda is a zoning ordinance text amendment. So this is the very first one of our 2024 filing. And this is to amend the B-1 zone in order to allow truck and trailer rental uses. And so the applicant is U-Haul of Louisville, Kentucky. Just to provide some background on this particular case, there was some enforcement action that was done as a result of a mass complaint for various locations kind of throughout Lexington for truck and trailer rental businesses that were operating in zones that they weren't supposed to be operating. And so as a result, a sort of enforcement has gone through. These operators reached out to U-Haul, the parent company, and so they are filing the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to try to address these conditions on some of these. Now, not all of the properties that were cited in this enforcement action would even be applicable in this instance, but this is U-Haul attempting to make those uses work within the B1 and B6P zones. So currently, the applicant's proposal would allow truck and trailer rental and leasing businesses as a principal use in the B1 zone as long as they could meet the six conditions listed on the screen here. Primarily, it relates to a separation from direct contact with residential zones, limits on the number of units, and some setbacks. But overall, the intent is to make this a principal use. So it would not be a conditional use where it would require further review by the Board of Adjustment, but any property in a B1 zone that can meet those criteria, it would be able to operate as a principal use. Current language in the B1 zone, it is only allowed in one particular instance. So this is existing language that you can apply for a conditional use as long as you are meeting several criteria. One is that you're located on a state or federal highway, that you are an existing service station or a gas station, and that you meet those requirements. So really just speaking to the fact of we are wanting these uses to locate in higher intensity roadways where they're better served by the traffic and sort of this really describes a location that really isn't much of a B1 zone under our current zoning ordinance and really would meet character-wise with more of a B3. So that is the only aspect in which you can operate a truck or trailer rental business in the B1 zone. In the B3 or our other commercial zones, it is lumped together with the same kind of auto sales uses. So lumped together with the sale, rental of equipment, automobiles, similar uses, all sort of lumped together because they have these same land use impacts. There's a storage component, a display component, and really the higher intensity traffic. So this is found to be appropriate and needed in other areas of our community. However, in our current zoning ordinance, we consider them kind of too intense in most part for the B1 zone. So the applicant is wishing to amend this. The intent in the B1 zone really is to provide kind of neighborhood scale facilities, not something that is really seeking to provide sort of a regional benefit or a regional reach, but rather an area where we're promoting kind of daily services, walkability, connected uses, and promoting a neighborhood feel. Our upcoming UGM ZODA is seeking to kind of modify these uses further to promote B1 zones that we can feel comfortable putting in close proximity to residential areas. The UGM ZODA that you all just recommended approval and is currently being considered by a council actually removes the conditional use that we've got on the books currently. So the way that the Planning Commission and planning staff and the community through the comprehensive plan is pushing is really a way from encouraging auto-centric uses, higher intensity traffic uses in the B1 zone and trying to make it a little more localized in scale. Staff's concerns with this zoning ordinance, you've got the staff report in front of you, so I'll just sort of be brief on this. Staff doesn't find that it's appropriate in the neighborhood context. Once again, we're wanting to engage walkability, activation of the street frontage, incorporation within residential. The principal use versus conditional use, this kind of takes even less oversight. I mean, it takes away ability to kind of further regulate those uses. So currently it's a conditional use. They would kind of remove the Board of Adjustment ability to even kind of take a look at those particular uses. Their justification doesn't really effectively argue that this is in congruence with the comprehensive plan. So our comprehensive plan says we need to kind of promote safety in our neighborhood, promote these safe connections, promote utilizing these neighborhood-scale facilities in a manner that really works. There's inconsistency with how the zoning ordinance, this amendment would treat these uses. So it would carve out an exception for truck and trailer rental businesses, but you would not be able to rent, say, an automobile, any other type of equipment. So it sort of makes an arbitrary distinction in order to allow this one particular use to operate in this one particular zone. And once again, it's inconsistent with our current efforts that the Planning Commission just recommended approval for to kind of take these uses away from that particular zone. So staff found that this was sort of overall not in agreement with any of those aspects. So we are recommending disapproval for the reasons you see up on screen and further fleshed out in the staff report in front of you. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time. Any questions for Mr. Crone? Do we have any representative here? No. So the U-Haul was notified, or the representatives from U-Haul were notified that today was the committee, but it looks like they've not opted to attend. Most of the correspondence has been out of their corporate office in Arizona, So a lot of this was sort of mailed in. But we have made them aware of the different deadlines, timelines, meetings, and the like. Okay. Thank you. Yep. With that being said, bring it back to the commission for a motion if there's not any further discussion. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee recommend disapproval of the proposed PLN Zota 24-1. Thank you. We have a second. Second. Second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. If there's not any further discussion, please raise your right hand in favor. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We don't have to mention the postponed item, do we? Yeah, we have no movement on the postponed item. Okay. All right. With that being said. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one quick question? I know it. He was trying to get. He was trying to. You all know this better than I would, but one of the things that we do, we tried to do in the proper planning was to allow for that first floor on any level to be used for commercial space. Now, I'm riding around town. I see a lot of shades and things. I guess statistically speaking, from a professional perspective, is that concept working? No. No. Okay. In that case, then, why do we, well, okay, nothing. I'm speaking from banking experience. No. And from real estate, no. Then I guess the question is, when we set forth on that plan, we were thinking that this would be something good and positive to, in fact, inspire, you know, developers to do. And now what I'm hearing is that from the bankers and the real estate people, it's not working. So what are we doing about that? Yeah, so there's, to a certain extent, you know, there's benefits, not including kind of the market side of things, but just the planning perspective, where we're talking about activating those areas. There is benefit to that, where I think, I'm not sure there's any instances where we're requiring, I mean, we are sort of trying to get away from requiring that and not allowing for either that, you know, multifamily or other uses just to be the principal use. So I think we are trying to accommodate that. But there is benefit to providing that, especially in, say, like a downtown context. But we understand that the market maybe is not in a great place for that right now. Well, my point was we shouldn't allow people to come in to use that as an incentive for allowing them to get their plans approved when we know it doesn't work. That's the kicker where I'm headed on that. But that's another issue, I suppose. turn this mic on so Tracy won't get mad at me. You got all day. You want to keep talking? After I adjourn? Okay, after I adjourn. Okay, then. Now, does anybody else have anything? Mr. Poe? Mr. Davis? No. Mr. Davis? No. Okay. All right, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.