So So So So So Okay, good afternoon. Welcome everyone, it's now 1.30, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Items public meeting. First on the agenda for the commissioners, we have the approval of minutes. This is the September 12th and September 26th, 2024 minutes. Do we have anything, staff? Just the 12th? Okay, revise that, just the 12th, September 12th. We will get the 26th on the next meeting. So the floor is open for a motion to accept those minutes. Mr. Mickler? I move to approve the minutes of the September 12th meeting. Okay, we have a second? Second. Okay, we got a second by Mr. Wilson. Oh, Ms. Wirth, she got you. Wirth ended it. Yep, so we will vote via Granicus. All right, that motion passes. Postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chair, we have several items that have had requested postponements. On page three of your agenda, item number one, that's a request for Realty Unlimited Bluegrass Zoning and Development Plan. They're requesting a one month postponement to the November 21st hearing. Okay, the floor is open for the commission for a motion for that one month postponement. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I move the postponement of Realty Unlimited Bluegrass LLG Zoning Map Amendment in Higby Mill Court, lot five, lot 11, that is, development plan, to November the 21st. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. All right, by Mr. Owens. Please vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes unanimously. The next item that is a requested postponement will be on page eight of your agenda. Under item C, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. This would be Zoda 2406, revisions to Article 23A10 for the Economic Development Zone. They are also requesting a one month postponement to the 21st of November. Okay, all right, floor is open for the commission. Ms. Worth? Mr. Chair, I move for a one month postponement of PLM Zoda 246, revisions to Article 23A10. All right, thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Second by Mr. Owens. All, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. And finally, Mr. Chair, we have a request on the bottom of page eight under staff items for BOAR 2402, Kevin Egan and Adam Wheeler. And they are requesting a postponement to the November 14th hearing. That should be a commission item. Okay. Okay. All right, floor is open for a motion to move this particular application to November 14th. Mr. Pohl? Mr. Chair, move to postpone PLN BOAR 24-2 to the next month's meeting. Okay. Okay, do we have a second to that motion? Okay, second by Ms. Owens. Ms. Worth, got you again. So we'll vote via Granicus. All right, then, motion passes. Thank you. All right, is there any more postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll put us on page two of the agenda, PLN MJDP 24-68. Good afternoon, Chair Forrester and members of the commission. For those in the audience, my name is Tracy Wade, and I'm the Planning Services Manager. Our first item today is on, again, page two of the agenda, and this is a postponed item from our last public meeting for a development plan. For property located at 509 East Main Street, and this is the Z. Faulkner property. I will point the Planning Commission to a few items that they have in Granicus. There's a number of public comments that we've received. And actually, you'll see there's two different attachments that are called public comments. We did receive one after our 10 AM deadline, and we wanted to make sure that you had that in front of you as well. In front of you at your seat is a pink handout for revised conditions. And we'll get started. So the subject property is located at 509 East Main Street. And to start just a little bit of history, this is the preliminary development plan that was approved last year in association with a zone change at this property. At that time, the request was made to change conditional zoning restrictions. There was a very, very restrictive restriction on the property that limited it to very few uses. So the applicant asked for that to be broadened, and we've attached the zoning ordinance amendment also to Granicus for you to review a little bit closer. During the course of that review of this development plan, the Planning Commission did recommend approval and made some specific note recommendations on this development plan. Specifically, these three notes, number 10, 11, and 12. Number 10 is to make sure all deliveries to the property and ride share trips utilize the rear parking lot. The 11 note was related to operation times for the property, which specified regular business hours for the property, Sunday through Thursday from 8.30 till 10 PM. And then Friday and Saturday a little bit extended from 9 AM to midnight. And then outside patio areas will close at 10 PM throughout the week. And then the last note that was added related to the development plan, and it reads a little funny here, which I think is probably a typo. It says there shall be no outdoor speaking permitted on the property. I think our understanding was there'd be no outdoor speakers permitted on the property. So, and then the actual ordinance that was adopted by the Urban County Council changed one item that was recommended by the Planning Commission, so I wanted to bring that to your attention as well. And that was item C. The parking lot will be screened from Forest Avenue by the brick wall and landscaping shown on the submitted development plan. That's what the commission heard last year and approved. The council added a second sentence to this section, which states that a buffer screening of up to 15 feet in height shall be planted along the sides and rear of the property as approved by the planning commission. The final development plan, which we're reviewing today, and then also consistent with findings of the Board of Architectural Review. Again, this item, or this structure and property are located in a local historic district, so the BOAR has the ability to review exterior changes, including landscape elements. The reason that the applicant postponed two weeks ago was in order to actually attend the BOAR hearing, which occurred on October 16th, and at that time, they proposed potential landscape elements related to the conditional zoning restriction that was added for or by the council. At that time, the BOAR reviewed the applicant's proposal, and did approve what they termed a green screen, which will consist of bamboo plantings between the existing masonry wall and the existing parking lot. So the applicant submitted this revised final development plan for today's hearing to reflect those decisions of the BOAR, and that includes a detail of the bamboo planting. And also, it's hard to read here, but we'll get to it, the location of the planting on the site. So as you can see from this development plan, the site has one principal structure, and with the zone change, it's been B1 for an extended period of time. But with the zone change... We'll just wait a minute. Thank you. With the zone change, the number of allowable uses did change. So the building that occupies the property is a three-story building made up of about 9,100 square feet, and there are 14 parking spaces in the rear. Those are the existing conditions, and they're not proposed to be changed with this application. Really, the proposed changes are limited to the bamboo screening being added and the use of the property changing. So the staff has reviewed the proposed development plan and do suggest the typical sign-offs for this site, which include the first 12 conditions of approval on the revised staff report. And then on the second side, there were a few things that were requested to be updated, included per the regulations that had not been noted on here, and those include the dimensions of the garden area, parking spaces, and vehicular access point, and the landscape buffers. Also, they need to denote the bicycle parking and the specific proposed use. At this point, it just says neighborhood business and indicates no dwelling units, but I believe the proposed use is a private club at this point. And then three new conditions at the bottom of the staff report, number 15, denoting that a minimum of one rideshare parking space be located within the rear parking lot, and then establish signage designating such on the site. And then the last two are related to modifying two of the notes that we spoke about a few minutes ago. So let me get to that. Before we move past the BOAR, I just want to note the blue dash line indicates the location that the BOAR approved for the bamboo screening. So that's going to be the side yard and along the parking lot, along Forest Avenue, then along the rear of the site, and along the right-hand side of the parking. And again, that's adjacent to single family in some cases, and then multifamily to the right-hand side. And then the staff, again, recommends that there be at least one designated space for ridesharing on their property. In terms of the certificate appropriateness from the BOAR that we received, the particular, I guess, finding or directive from BOAR was to install a green screen, which consists of a rhizome barrier with bamboo around the perimeter of the masonry wall and parking lot per the proposed plan. And again, it shows the detail on this plan so that when it's planted, we can follow that detail. In terms of the notes that the staff's recommending modification to, in the blue box is what the applicant is proposing. The staff recommends a few changes. So number 10, no change. Number 11, the staff suggests returning to the term business hours instead of regular service hours for the site. This proposal seems to match the preliminary development plan in terms of days of operation and times, but the term business hours is more typical in terms of operating, you know, open for business. These are your typical operating hours and wouldn't include prep time and clean up after a business is closed. But the neighbors have been concerned about changing the term to service hours because there's some sense that that changes kind of what's expected. The second half of that note does need a slight change as well. The outside patio area shall close for service at 10 p.m. daily, which the staff feels is consistent with the previous note, except for up to 12 special events per year, which may extend to the business hours. So again, they say extend to the hours of operation. The staff wants to clarify that really it's the business hours. What the applicant is asking for is an exception to what the note was that was approved last year, and that is the 12 days per year where the hours can be extended past 10 p.m. The staff feels that that is pretty reasonable for special events, although my understanding is the neighbors are still not comfortable with that. And then the last one is related to outdoor music speakers. So again, if you'll remember last year, the planning commission said there should be no outdoor speakers, not speaking, but speakers permitted on the property, and the staff feels that that remains an appropriate condition for this site. But the applicant had asked for there to be some allowance for music on the patios and then with some sort of limit on the decibels. The staff feels that that is very difficult to monitor and enforce, and having just a no speaker policy is the best way to go forward with that. So that addresses all the notes in the staff's recommendation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions about this particular development plan. Tracy, do we have any questions for staff? Not seeing any. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners, here on behalf of the owners and applicant. We've reviewed the revised staff recommendations and are agreeable to them, except we would like to have the last one with the outdoor speakers. They would like to have the speakers on their patio and be regulated by the noise violations like everyone else in the city. That's the one issue that we'd like to have revised from the staff's recommendations. I guess I need to make an announcement after the tenth time, but I won't make one now since everybody knows. Mr. Kaley, any questions for the applicant? Yes, Mr. McKinley. I've got one on Ural's landscape screening. I take it this proposal sort of came as a looking for a way to satisfy that requirement put on at council around a relatively narrow area, and then given the choice of bamboo, you all are proposing what would be logical, which is to use the root barrier, the rhizome barrier. I guess where I'm looking at this is you all have 30 inches. Usually that, as you sort of indicate, requires creating a trench, and there are some mature trees along that sort of barrier that would, I guess from the way that I'm looking at it now, unnecessarily disturb the root zone with the goal of using this bamboo, and I guess I was wondering if you could speak to that. A little bit. I was not at the BOAR where this resolution was chosen. Other options were to tear out all the asphalt and plant evergreen screening, which would be more invasive. Usually you get about 18 inches there, I think, between the wall and the pavement. It will be a trench for this, rhizome barriers, stop the spread of the roots. You won't be circling the trees. Just between them and the wall, I think in that location, based on what the BOAR has recommended as appropriateness, I don't believe the damage will be that severe. I don't know that you and I can necessarily ask for a break where the trees are and let the tree be the screen. That seems to be a reasonable option if it's possible, or you just would stop the trenching, say five feet either side of that trunk, to let the roots stay as they are. The trees there are pretty old, so the roots are established. I think in particular the sort of three trees to the north of 513 East Main, which are fairly sizable and also really close to the trench, and it does look like that particular area of the parking lot gives a little bit more affordability just for some plantings. At this point, looking at it, I guess I would suggest ending the bamboo buffer at that one corner and then that last leg be handled in a different way regarding those three sizable trees. But it doesn't seem like you all have sort of discussed that as a variable. I don't know that we thought we had variables after the BOAR ruled. Tracy? Well, I'm not sure what the BOAR said either, because I wasn't there either. But, I mean, the way I understood the council condition when they put it on there, because I was there for that, was they wanted to provide this buffer, but make it so that it would fit whatever the BOAR said historically based on, you know, since it's in an H1, based on the historic district and based on what the landscaping is there that would be consistent with adding it to this. So, you know, I don't know if there's any allowance to go back to them, just to the staff, and say, hey, you know, we're going to do this, but the planning commission wants to know if we can stop it here as opposed to making it continuous around the trees. To be honest, I don't know, because I don't know exactly how the BOAR came down on that. I mean, their goal is to protect the historic features of the landscaping and not do anything that would change that drastically or significantly. So, you know, the condition that the council put on was worded a little differently than what we normally see. So it gave a lot of leeway to the BOAR because of the H1. So if you would you zoom in on that area up top on this development plan, or you can't zoom in on this? You know, what I'm looking at here is, so the landscape buffer, does that, is that not the same as the dotted lines on the black and white development plan? Yes, it should be, yes. The black and white development plan has the dotted lines cutting across that, Maria, the 513 East Main, and this version has it ending at the corner, which would be logical. Yes, the black and white has the dots where you say, as these changes were coming in and I had to get it filed, we had a rendering drafted before we added that last bit. So as you say, across the back of the adjoining lot facing Main Street, it is shown to be the bamboo placed there, and turn the corner, come down where the parking spaces are a lot freer. Basically, everything that has asphalt up next to a neighbor is supposed to have the bamboo placed at the edge. Is that what you submitted to the BOAR? Yes. So just to clarify, just to clarify, my concern is that last segment on the black and white plan that shows it going further than what this plan shows, because it would, I think, impact almost certainly the health of those three mature trees. I can't show you what the BOAR staff gave us. Should go to there. So I understand the concern. My, I guess, hesitancy is that the BOAR staff gave us something that differs from what Rory has in his file, that they handed to me on Monday, which is this. Yeah. They changed it even since then. Well, I'm not sure that BOAR, that the historic preservation staff or the applicant can change it once the BOAR has approved something. So this is what the BOAR said. Per the proposed plan, so if this was the proposed plan at the hearing, this is what they approved. The plan doesn't change after the hearing, right? Not for the BOAR, it doesn't. It's per this approved plan. So the question is, which plan did the BOAR consider and which did they approve? I mean, I don't know the answer to that. Well, this is the one their staff gave me. So I'm assuming that. We can't see that from here, Tracy. Can you? I mean, how many different plans are we talking about here, you know? Because it's not, I mean. It's not showing. It's not showing. So that's what's drawn in blue on this is what's reflected there. I mean, it's a different color, right? Do we need to just continue this right now? Because we don't have, I mean, that's not accurate on what we were showing. I, unless someone has a clear understanding of what, I mean, of what plan the BOAR was presented and what plan they approved, you do have time to continue it because you have until December 2nd to make a decision. But if someone knows the answer to the question, you can determine today. I mean, if it's this, I think to Mr. Mickler's question, it's not showing in that location of those trees at the back of 513. But I'm unclear as to if this is what the BOAR was approving, making their approval off of or not. A little input. So going into the BOAR, there was a different plan submitted by the applicants. You guys never saw this. Planner boxes at the top of the wall. Back up a little bit. Areas surrounded by a brick wall. In some locations you have power lines also above this brick wall. So the height of what you were putting in there mattered. So they were going to construct planner boxes, put them at the top of the wall, mounted, and they were going to grow short evergreens at the top of the wall to reach the height of screening. So it was decided at the BOAR on the fly that the bamboo was going to be the way the green screen was produced. So Monday there was a three-page document submitted by an architectural firm that got the BOAR's approval, got the letter of appropriateness. I also saw like three versions of that as it was going back and forth. And if we're saying that the BOAR, what they decide is there, then let's just have them be a sign-off on my development plan to make sure I correctly reference where the bamboo is in relation to a parking lot instead of trying to push us back again. Okay, Ms. Kaley. Mr. McMillan. I'm okay with that, but I would like to put on the record that the plan that you just passed around that was given to Ms. Wade by the historic preservation staff does have, at least in my opinion, the preferable layout to the bamboo because it would cause no disturbance in the root zone of those sort of three sizable trees. Yeah, and it looks like there's a garage or something on the adjoining property in that location. Roof lines and stuff. Any further questions for the applicant? Yes, Mr. Wilson. One thing, just for a bit of a clarification, you indicated that you'd like to have an exemption on 17 that says there should be no outdoor speakers permitted on the property. Yes, from the staff revised conditions, that was the one item that the applicants would like to go with the note as they had submitted as opposed to staff's alternative language. Can you elaborate as to why speakers are important here? What are we talking about? As it's designed, there's a patio out there they'd like to be able to have some music as they sat outside the patio area, much like you do in your backyard, I guess. So this is like background music or is it like dancing music? Yeah. Not that slide. It is the language that we offered was no loud outdoor music speakers shall be permitted on the property beyond that of low volume background music which shall be defined as not exceeding 70 decibels. Yeah, thank you. All right. Yes, Mr. Penn. I think in 17 years I've never heard anybody going to plant bamboo. If you've ever had experience with bamboo and we have in Georgia, once you get it there, you wish it was gone. It spreads. You can't control it. It is not as bad as kudzu, but it's pretty close. And I don't know why anybody would recommend that you plant bamboo. I just don't understand that. But that's not going to stop me from voting for this, but I will tell you that the next generation is not going to be real happy. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this application? Afternoon, Mr. Chair, Bruce Simpson. I'm a late pinch hitter. I'm here to represent a few folks in the Bellcourt neighborhood. In opposition to the proposed changes on the notes from what was on the preliminary development plan and what was committed to at the planning commission when you all heard this case in 2023 and what was committed to the Urban County Council during the zone change hearing. Marcy Deaton, I'm going to ask her if she would pass out some handbooks that will help illustrate what the commitments were, what you all heard in connection with these conditions that are now proposed to be significantly changed to the detriment of the people that live near this club. And just to review very briefly, the notes that were committed to with respect to when this plan went through the planning commission and the council were business hours will be from 830 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to midnight on the weekends with outdoor spaces closing at 10 p.m. nightly. That was what was committed to. Now that's proposed to be changed so that the outside area shall be closed for service only but apparently still be open for people to linger on past 10 p.m. And then they're also proposing 12 additional special events each year beyond what was agreed to in terms of hours of operation. The second issue has to deal with there shall be no outdoor speakers. And now they're proposing to change that. The neighbors met with the developers yesterday to try to work things out. And you will hear from the neighbors and they will share with you that it was represented by the developers that we can put the speakers inside and use the music as it goes outside as a way to finesse your requirement. Now, I just want to review very briefly what was represented and, in fact, some of the questions that you all had in October of last year when this case came before you. Under tab number one in the handout, this is a transcript, by the way, of the hearing, and I'm introducing in the record the videotaped segment of all the testimony that I have transcribed in my handout materials in terms of the representations, the questions that were asked by you, representations made by the applicant's attorney, Mr. Nicholson. The first one under tab number one, this is before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Michler asked a question. Can you talk about hours of operation, Attorney Nicholson? So it is, I believe, 8.30 to 10 on the weekdays, then not sure about the morning time on the weekends, turns to applicant, and then right now we have 9 to midnight for the weekends. We kind of corresponded with the hours of the bell house standing hours on the weekends. Commissioner Michler, that's a note on the development plan, or is that on the proposed conditions? Attorney Nicholson, it is not, but we can add that note to the development plan. Under tab number two, also in the Planning Commission, October 12, 2023, Attorney Nicholson, outdoor noise. We've kind of talked to the neighborhood in the past about restricting the outdoor areas to prohibit smoking. We are happy to do that. We are also happy to basically shut down the outdoor areas to an earlier basically in the night. So if we want 10 at night, we can shut basically those areas, and we're happy to do that. It's a note on the development plan. We are wanting to be good neighbors here. Under tab number three, again in front of the Planning Commission, October 12, 2023. Commissioner Graham-Poe, if it passes, I would favor strict limitations on the hours of operation. Strict limitations on noise and prevention of any short-term rentals in the residential unit. To include limitations on outdoor loudspeakers of any kind at any time. So that's where I stand. Under tab number four, also at the Planning Commission of October 12, 2023. Commissioner Nicholson, I have before I know we do a motion, I would like to hear that Mr. Nicholson, do you have some draft language that you might be willing to share as far as adding conditions to talk about the hours? Attorney Nicholson. We can work with Ms. Jones to do that through a recess. We thought that was only going to be able to do on a development plan notes as opposed to conditional zoning like the Urban County Council. Still very restrictive on conditional zoning restrictions. Under tab number five, again in front of the Planning Commission, hours of operation in outdoor areas. Commissioner Michler, sort of the times you discussed were, Attorney Nicholson, it was 8.30 to 10 on the weekdays and 9 until midnight on weekends. Excuse me, the weekdays. And 8.30 to 10, 9 to midnight on the weekends. And we're happy to restrict the outdoor areas to basically 10 throughout the entire week. Again, before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Mike Owens, I will move for approval of the preliminary plan and the recommendation. I would like to change number six to denote on-site drop-off location for members and deliveries only. And then in number seven, denote business hours as was presented by the applicant. Closing hours of 10 p.m. on weekdays, including closing the patio at 10 p.m. and then midnight on weekdays. Under tab number seven, this is before the Urban County Council, hours of operation, Attorney Nicholson. We also agree to make sure that ride shares are only drop-off on the property and 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 hearing to change these hours of operations, regardless of what kind of use goes forward, if this were to fail. Conditional zoning restrictions don't typically allow for this kind of detail, so we wanted to make sure we put it specifically on the development plan in writing in order to make sure this isn't something that could simply fall off. And then finally, under tab eight, Attorney Nicholson, we have voluntarily agreed to address the overwhelming concerns here, parking, noise, traffic, safety, and future uses that we don't know. We have tried to add restrictions to address every single one of them and put them in the manner that is able to be binding on the property moving forward and will require notice to the neighborhood to make any type of change. So the specific commitments were made as outlined in the handout material and on the preliminary development plan. Now, your decision is governed by the zoning ordinance with respect to what is required on a final development plan. And it says in Article 21B, Contents of Final Development Plan, all information requests for preliminary development plans are required under subsections A1 through 17, which is of this section above, except that contour intervals shall be at two feet. Then it goes on to say, and that the plan information, we're talking about the notes, and that the plan information shall be of an exact nature rather than approximate or general. So the specific commitments that were made to the neighbors during the course of discussions with the neighbors before it came to you all, that you all, some of you, had specific concerns about operation and wanted strict enforcement and strict limitation on hours of operation and noise. Now they're proposing to change that. That same representation was made before their council. There's no basis in the law for you to be able to do this. I don't think it comes close to demonstrating good faith and fair dealing with respect to the neighbors. And based on that, Mr. Chair and members of the commission, I respectfully request that you deny this proposed final development plan. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular application? Yes, sir. Yes, hi. My name is Tyler Bromagin. I'm the owner here and primary developer of the property. To give you guys a little context here on the good faith in dealing with the neighbors, first off, I'd like to remind you guys, out of all the potential uses at this property, ours is the least impactful. We have the least intensity usage here. We've gone through a year of negotiations, discussions and meetings, and we've made an incredible amount of concessions here. We have voluntarily eliminated, per the request of several of the neighbors, voluntarily eliminated over 40% of the accepted uses in the B-1. Those were cut out before we applied. We've severely restricted our hours of operation. We've added a privacy barrier that it seems nobody really likes except for the B-O-A-R. And to summarize what their attorney said, we're basically down to three items here. The language of business hours versus service hours, the ride share parking space, and the outdoor speakers. We sent an email to staff earlier. We'll agree to the language changes in the business hours. Per the staff recommendations, happy to add in the ride share parking spot. All we're really asking for is low volume ambient background noise. You all know this is on Main Street. The traffic is very loud. We'd just like to have a little ambient noise in our garden area. It is surrounded by 10-foot high walls, additional gardening bufferings. This should not be impactful to the neighbors. They won't hear us. This is nothing that any other business, neighborhood business, any of our neighbors couldn't do. And we're already closing the patio early anyway at 10 p.m. So we've made a lot of concessions. All I ask is you guys just give us this one. Thank you. Very briefly, the concessions that were just addressed were all considered during the rezoning, as well as the promises that were reflected on the preliminary development plan, and all are respectfully obligated to comply. As I indicated, and Marcy Deaton can back me up on this, they had a meeting with the neighbors, with the developer, and he indicated to them they could put speakers inside the property and blast them outside. I don't believe that's in compliance with the note about having loudspeakers on the patio, and we have prepared amended language to deal with any ambiguity, which simply says no speakers shall be placed inside any structure on the property for the purpose of amplifying sound outside the structure. Just to deal with what the developers told the neighbors that they were going to do to get around the supposed loudspeaker issue that Mr. Pohl expressed great concern about a year ago, as well as some of you other folks, let's deal with that now by adopting this proposed modification and leave the preliminary notes as they are, as they were adopted, which is required by law. And I'll introduce my proposed amendment into the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Just to be clear about the speakers pointing out of the windows, that was brought up by one of the commissioners in the December 10th, I believe, meeting. Somebody said that there. So that, again, is why we are clarifying and saying there is a decibel level that we are not going to go above. It's background ambient music. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hi, I'm Marcy Deaton. I live right behind this property. And I'm going to show a couple pictures. But while that's getting done, I want to just point out that this property has actually two patios. So there's one you can't see in this picture and one that's circled in red. And you can see how close that is to where I'm standing, which is at Stacey Rose's house in her yard, how close it is to my house. Barlow's house is that close. Now, the patio you can't see is there right under where the red arrows are. And it is literally that close to Maria's building that's two or three condos. So I just wanted to remind everybody this is a unique property because it is surrounded really tightly by several residences. And that's why it needs to have such strict conditions. We are down to three things. What the neighborhood wants is, and I think Mr. Bromingen just said it, they're closing the patios at 10. That's important to us. We don't want people lingering out there. But up until I just heard him say that, they had said they wanted only to stop serving on the patios. So I propose that the language be changed to say closing the patios rather than closing for service. So there's that. The music. Again, for the same reasons, the close proximity, and we've been promised over and over and over no outdoor speakers. We don't want them. It would be too hard to monitor. We can't run around going, oh, my, they're at 72 decimals. That could just fall off. The next manager doesn't know about the controls. Just having any outdoor speakers is, anyway, we're against that. Oh, and then I wanted to bring up also the special events. So they added a sentence to their latest proposed plan that says that the operating hours can be extended up to 12 times a year. Well, I don't know how many other times you'd want to be up past midnight at an event there except New Year's. I think 12 is like once a month. It seems excessive to me. Also, it wasn't ever in the preliminary plans or in any of the discussions that we ever had with them that they would have these exceptions and stay open past midnight. So we also would suggest or ask, please, to remove that exception. My friend Megan knows more about it. But they can apply for an event somehow if they want to have, you know, like a New Year's party. We'd rather it not be a note on the plan. Thanks. Thank you. Hold on, sir. Hold on a second. I'm going to bring this back to the commission for a second. Have we got any questions? Or? Because I've asked everybody else. Yes. One question. It seems the neighbors have come down to three items. Yep. The question is from the developer, are they willing to go with the three items? Okay. Yes. Again, we are in consensus on two of the items. We're willing to go with their language, the staff recommended language on business hours, the change from service hours to business hours. And we're going to do that Uber ride sharing spot. I'm happy to do that. Again, as far as the outdoor speakers go, we would like a little low background music. That is it. The traffic from Main Street is loud. And what I will tell you as far as good faith dealings, the neighbors have all of our personal cell numbers. I guarantee you if there is an incident, we are going to hear about it, and I'm motivated to not have any issues with our neighbors. Do you guys have any questions for me? Yes, Mr. Nickel. All right. Just confirm please for me that we're talking about note 12 that says no loud outdoor music speakers shall be permitted on the property beyond that of low volume background music, which shall be defined as not exceeding 70 decibels. That that is the item of question. Is that correct? That's what it seems like. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I just want to clarify something to you. I understand your desire for ambient noise on the patio. That can assist on, you know, keeping some background noise, can keep some people's conversations a little more private. It can make the space feel a little more intimate, and you can achieve that with a water feature or fountains. You don't need to be putting in canned outdoor music to achieve the feel that you want, and I really don't know how you're going to do that. And you can achieve that with a water feature or fountains. You don't need to be putting in canned outdoor music to achieve the feel that you want, and I really don't know why this made it back on. So I would just again say that this is, we're not asking for anything that any other neighborhood business couldn't do. You look at Kenwick Table, other coffee shops, other B1s, none of them are restricted to no outdoor speakers. We're just asking for anything that any of our neighbors, any of the neighboring businesses can do. And I don't know, I mean, technically the way it's written, can we have security cameras with a nest security camera where you can hop on there and do a speaker? If there's no outdoor speakers whatsoever, if one of our members. comes in and puts their phone on a table and plays music, are we gonna get a bunch of code enforcement calls saying that we have outdoor speakers everywhere? We are literally just asking for a little bit of leeway and we are restricting it by setting that decibel level. And again, if they hear it, I'm gonna get a call about it. So, thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hi, I'm Megan Winfield. I'm at 505 East Main Street just across Forest Avenue on the same side of Main Street from this property. Just on the speaker issue, I think the real issue with the speakers is whatever the baseline level of noise is, everyone's gonna talk above that. So, if there's a 70 decibel speaker, then the volume of voices tends to get louder to talk over that noise. We're just trying to minimize, as Marcy showed in this illustration. It's not, we're talking about a first floor patio that's enclosed by walls, it's second story. And the other day, the contractors were having a conversation on that patio. They might as well have been in my bedroom. I could hear every word I can tell you what they decided because that meeting is that close to my house. So, we're gonna be listening and subject to whatever music or playlist they decide they wanna play. If they have gangster at night at the club, that's what we're doing in our houses too. So, I think it's fair and there was a reason that that restriction was put on. And I don't think we need to be subjected to whatever that ambient music is. I think there's other ways to drown out the Main Street. We all live with that noise and we have other ways of accommodating that. On the special events, I just find this odd to write this in to a plan. I feel like if they wanna have a special event with a variant, they can request that as a one-time special event. I don't understand practicality-wise how we're gonna enforce those 12 a year. How is the neighborhood gonna know which days are the 12? How is code enforcement gonna know which days are the 12? Are we calling code and then they're telling us, no, no, that's a special event because they have 12 exceptions. And then once we hit 12, we get to start calling. That's, I think it's just confusing. I think that language was jammed in at the last minute. We never talked about that as a neighborhood. It was never discussed with the developers in all of the meetings that we had. It wasn't talked about in the preliminary plan. So, my suggestion would be to strike it. And then if they wanna come back with special events language, we can have that conversation or they can request individual events as other establishments, like Tyler mentioned. Other businesses do that. So, that seems totally normal to me. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, ladies and gents. We're gonna bring this back to the commission. Close this portion out. Any further questions that you may have for the applicant or staff? Clarify. I think the applicant has already agreed to eliminate the special events, haven't they? Or not? Mm-mm. Mm-mm. And we were now back down to the three on the left-hand side. Yeah, I think they only agreed to the... I was waiting. The 10 p.m. restriction on the patio. The staff was supportive of 12 special events. I don't know. There is a special event permit available, but that's for public spaces. Otherwise, once business operating hours are established, and they're put on your development plan, there's not really a variance process by which someone can get approval. I can't grant them approval. Mr. Duncan can't grant them approval, so. That's not my question. My question is, I want to clarify what this gentleman said about they'd already agreed to two, and we were only arguing about the third point. Third point was the speakers. That was the third point, was the speakers only. Everything else he was fine with, except for he wanted, the applicant wanted outdoor speakers. So we actually would like to keep in the language of the 12 special events a year. The last Planning Commission meeting, we were asked to specifically limit that language, and we limited that to 12 a year. Our original language that we applied with was, on special occasions that may extend service hours, you know, we would like to do a New Year's Eve party. We would like to have a few parties throughout the year that extends the patio hours past 10 p.m. We have set a very specific number in there at this commission's request. Mr. Chair, Tracy, if I may, how would up to 12 special events per year be policed? I guess they could report at the end of the year or the beginning of the year how many and when. But, okay, so what happens if there's 14 by then? Well, then they get a notice of violation from zoning enforcement that they've exceeded their limit. Personally, I see that as problematic. Comments? Yeah, yeah. If I remember correctly, I made the motion on this for approval on the preliminary plan with the hours, business hours, I've got it right in front of me, 8.30 to 10 on weekdays, 9 to midnight on weekends, and outdoor spacing closing at 10 p.m. on a nightly basis. And then also, there was another one that said there shall be no outdoor speakers. I'm still willing to go with that. And as I said, I can appreciate them wanting to have a New Year's Eve party there. I don't know how you work that. But I think 12 special events per year gets problematic as well, so. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I was just wondering if on the special events, if there was, if we could impose a requirement that they notify the neighborhood association or something when they are planning a special event, and then that way the neighborhood knows when to expect it to be a little later, and they can keep track of the 12. Mr. Owens, what do you think about that? Or you still don't like it? I'm thinking, I still, personally, I still think it's problematic. It's a good attempt, but. I mean, it's the tracking mechanism, I guess. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I like Ms. Barksdale's suggestion. That way, the homeowners association knows exactly, and that's the way they can make the accountability of it as such. So I think that accommodation is something I could live with, not with seeing what my plan is. No, hey, I'm willing to try anything. Thank you, Ms. Barksdale. Yes, Mr. Mickler. Thank you. Well, I kind of like the simplicity of just putting the hours on here, and it seems like it doesn't seem that onerous to me to say that you're ending service at 10 p.m. on the patio, and that at New Year's, you go in for your Prosecco. It's going to be cold anyway on December 31st. So I think they can head inside and order at the bar, and the only thing that I see in regards to that is I think the hours of operation for the property could be set at the, basically, we could take the language that they proposed, or that the staff proposed, but just specify that the special events would extend the hours of operation inside, or we could add New Year's in, where they can be open until 12 on New Year's, and otherwise, Friday or Saturday. Any further questions, comments? Okay, I've heard several different suggestions, so the floor is open. Yep, the floor is open for a motion. Well, you can go ask. Do we have a staff? I don't think so. Ms. Wade, yeah, she had, staff recommendations was revising. That's still under development there, right? Yeah. So this is the staff recommendations? Yeah, yep. We can have Mr. Edwards put up the PowerPoint slide if you, would you like to see the PowerPoint slide, which include the full note? Would that be better? Where's the revised language from you all, revised? It was on the PowerPoint. Well, condition 16 and 17 would update the business hours, from service hours to business hours, and then. Sorry. I just had to turn. Oh, okay, back to that. I had mine turned over. I thought you couldn't see it, man. So, but that's the one they asked us, right, right? So this is the one where we can see. Kind of as we're deliberating, I'm inclined to recommend Mr. Wilson's idea, just to make that clear. And I think we've got a couple down here as well. What couple? Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson. Actually, it was Ms. Barksdale's. What I was trying to do is put together Ms. Barksdale's and Mr. Owens's comments into one, one of which would be, yes, we can approve this with the conditions provided that they would be able to stay with the timeframe that Mr. Mickler has indicated, and that we've all agreed to, and that secondly, on special occasions, they'd have to notify HOA or whatever it is about what they were going to do, and that would be an accountability that we could hold the developer in line with the number of times that they would be allowed to do that during the year. I don't know how to say that in a clean fashion because I haven't gotten it that far. Just want to clarify that you're accepting the limit of 12, and it's within that limit of 12? Yes, up to, I think using Mr. Owens's language, up to a minimum of 12, as such. Which is what's on there, yeah. Okay, so I keep you saying up to a minimum, but it's really up to 12. Right, 12 is the maximum. My word salad is. You know, I just kind of feel like if there are no guidelines, people tend to do what they can get away with, so if I can, there's no guidelines, and New Year's Eve, I'm not going to end at 12 because what are we going to do, toast, and then everybody, you got to go immediately. You know, you can't even stay until the ball drops, so they're going to stay open. So I'm thinking it's better, as a neighbor, I think it would be better for me to know that they're going to be open. Give them a little bit of leeway so that it won't be that, you know, one o'clock in the morning, you know, all of a sudden, am I still hearing music? Am I hearing people outside? You know, it's, I don't know, I think you just give them a little leeway so that they have an opportunity to do things right by the neighborhood. Okay, who want to tackle that motion? I think that they, I think. Mr. Wilson? Well, I. Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens. Mr. McLuhan. Mr. McLuhan. Mr. Owens. Mr. McLuhan. And I guess my question on that would be, if we allow a certain number of extended hours, does that mean two, three, four o'clock in the morning, or does that mean one o'clock in the morning? The language says two business hours, so that would limit it to the business hours. Did it say two business hours? Okay. Yeah. This is for on, I think, the weekends, they can. It just means that they can keep it going until midnight. Thank you. So, Mr. Owens, the normal business hours is 8.30 to 10 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 12 a.m. That's the normal business, that's what's on, yes. What about the special events? The language is that they would follow the business hours, same business hours. It's the patio that's closing early, right? So, on 12 days of the year, you would allow people to be on the patio beyond 10 p.m., to midnight, if it's a Saturday or Sunday, if it's a Friday or Saturday. The other days of the week, the business ends at 10 p.m. anyway, so. So, midnight is closing time, period? Yes. Okay. And if you want notice to go to neighbors, I would suggest adding an extra sentence at the end of 11, stating that the property owner would notify the Bell Court Neighborhood Association one week prior to special events. You said on number 11? Excuse me? Number 11 of these, okay, sorry, sorry. Okay, so, there's no, okay, I guess I've read that wrong. I didn't say, I didn't see the extend to the business hours. I was thinking, would they extend business hours? That's the staff's recommendation, which the applicant just told you that they agreed with number 10 and number 11. Yes. And they were not in agreement with the staff's recommendation for note number 12. Okay, all right. Okay, when he said 11, he said replace service hours with business hours. Okay, okay, I'm catching up. Okay. Motion? Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Let me try. I'll move for approval of plan MJDP 24-68 Z. Faulkner property with the revised 17 conditions, taking note of the development plan notes of 10, 11, and 12, and I guess adding to number 11 that the applicant shall notify the Bellcourt HOA of the 12 special events possible per year. Okay, and that's Bellcourt Neighborhood Association HOA? Right, they're not homeowners. I just want to make sure that was clarified. Thank you, Mr. Meekler. Do we have a second? So we got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Can you clarify that the notification to the Neighborhood Association has to be one week prior to the event? One week prior to? Prior to the event. One week prior to, yes. Ms. Werth is still seconding that motion. Okay, so we have that revision. Any more discussion to this application? Mr. Meekler? Well, this is just a note that, and should, or should we add one more condition relative to our discussion earlier that the discrepancy between the plans, the colored development plan and the black and white development plan be reconciled and signed off by the Historic Preservation staff? Yes, Historic Preservation Office will need to approve the landscaping and the landscaping detail per the Board of Architectural Review approval. Yes, please. Yes, please. So moved. All right, we have a motion and a second. Please vote via Grampus. Okay, your motion passes. Thank you. All right, before we go to the next application, I'm going to actually like to want to take, go to page six and take this application just to move it up a little bit, and that's PLNMAR24-16. And before we get to that, I think the phones have rung about eight times. So if respectfully, can everyone look at your phone and make sure that it's on vibrate, and it's not just you, because one of our members up here had their phone rung, too, so don't feel bad. So just look at it, make sure it's on vibrate, and then we can keep it moving. Okay, thank you. It looks like we have three action items on this application, too. Zone change, variance, and preliminary development plan. Yes. Daniel Crum, planning staff. Before we begin, I guess we'd like to see if this could be an abbreviated item. Is there anyone here to speak on the item at 223 East 7th Street? That is MAR2416, anyone here from the public that would wish to speak on that? Mr. Chair, it looks like this can be heard as an abbreviated item. So this request is to rezone the property at 223 East 7th Street from the B1 neighborhood business zone to the R3 planned neighborhood residential zone. The intent behind this rezoning is to convert an existing structure into a single family residence. The applicant has chosen an enhanced neighborhood place type and a low density residential development type. Staff is in agreement with both the place type and the development type for this application. Just to orient ourselves, the subject property is a small parcel that is located on 7th Street. Zooming in a little bit closer, you get a better idea of the surrounding vicinity. So the subject property, once again, is shown in white. In the nearby vicinity, we have where North Martin Luther King intersects with 7th. A little bit further to the east, we have Lancaster Avenue. The subject property itself is zoned B1. This is a portion of B1 that extends to a lot of properties on 7th Street. That was applied by the urban county government. There wasn't a rezoning requested. The other portions of the neighborhood are primarily R3. This brown color is residential zoning. On Lancaster, you do have portions of industrial development, but otherwise the neighborhood is predominantly the applicant's requested R3 zone. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property. Once again, predominantly residential in the vicinity. There are some commercial uses present on 7th Street. There are also residential uses that have B1 zoning as well. So that sort of mismatch when that was applied does lead to some non-conforming situations. The subject property itself is this structure here. So it indicates that it was originally built as a residence, then later modified for use as a business with an apartment in the rear. However, it has been vacant for some time. And in order to use this structure residentially and remodel it as such, would require a rezoning to a residential zone. Adjoining to the, on the left side of the screen here, is an existing commercial use. It does appear vacant. And then to the, on the opposite side, is another property that is zoned B1, but has a purely residential use. So it is adjoining residential as well as a commercial use. But otherwise, the property is fairly constrained and kind of occupies most of the site. This is the view down 7th Street, getting an idea of kind of the character of the area. A lot of development near the street, a mix of residential and some non-residential uses. Looking in the opposite direction, you'll notice to the left is the Habitat for Humanity Development. This was a rezoning to the R3 that you all approved within the past couple years. So it is being constructed, so another instance of converting some of the business that was being underutilized for residential purposes for the sake of providing housing. Here, we have a single family residential use, so there really isn't a development plan. It is a subdivision plan, and so they show the proposed lot. They're wanting to utilize the existing building as is and just make renovations. In order to give kind of a better idea of how it's situated on the site, they have provided this exhibit. But once again, using a structure for a single family residential use. Due to the implications of changing this from a business to a residential zone, there is a requested variance that we will speak on in a minute to reduce the required property perimeter, where it adjoins, if rezoned, would adjoin B1 zoning here and here. But staff is recommending approval. We find that this is, taking this back to residential use provides additional housing, and it's in an area that has built-in pedestrian networks, and so this type of residential use in this location makes sense. We find it's in agreement with the policies of the comprehensive plan and the recommendations for land use, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity, environmental sustainability and resiliency, site design, as well as building form. As always, that's subject to the approval of the corresponding subdivision plan. And then after staff is done presenting that, I will present the information on the variance. But at this time, I'd be happy to take any questions you all have of the rezoning portion of this item. Any questions? Yep. Just a quick one, just to clarify, since there have been some changes to a lot of the zones, that we've made it more flexible to do residential and business zonings, but I guess the B1 still requires ground level business, is that what- Yes, yes, so they previously had operated with a business and an apartment to the rear, but solely residential is still not allowed in the B1 yet. Thank you. Cheryl? Good afternoon, this is MJSUB 247 Lancaster Kaiser property. As Daniel had pointed out, that this property is located here, 7th Street in Lancaster. This is the property here in the middle. It is, they're wanting to zone it to the R3 zone, and I'm just drawing a blank, and what they're showing right now is a 20-foot building line on this property. Oops, just to, the B1 zone has a building line setback of 10 to 20, and the R3 zoning has a setback of 20 foot. But the structure on the property is closer than the 20 foot, so when we review the conditions on the agenda here, we had our typical sign-offs, engineering, traffic, forester, environmental quality. This property is located within the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee, and will we review that again before it'll go to the committee? But it's a residential, moving to a residential, so they don't typically require any, make any comments on the residential. Discuss building line setback, and as I was saying, the building line setback here is shown at 20 feet. The discussion, we can make it resolved. We just know that there's a structure on the property that's closer than 20 feet, and we like to denote that that structure is non-conforming to the zoning setback. And that should this structure be removed, we want to make sure that it's then built at the 20 foot building line setback, if it should come, if they should rebuild it. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments. Comments for staff? Thank you. Mr. Crone. Comments? With respect to the variance request, the ordinance allows you all to hear variances associated with zone change. Here, there's a requirement that where this property adjoins that business zoning, there is a requirement for a 15 foot landscape buffer with trees and other plantings that can be reduced down to five with a fence. However, the applicant's property with its existing context, that is not really possible. You see the 15 foot lines where they go through the building on each side, and then building to the five foot line on the left side is not possible, and the right would basically eliminate their single driveway. So with that, there is a sort of the existing conditions of the site, the urban context with that, present an inability to meet the requirements and requiring them would be detrimental. So the staff is recommending approval of the requested variance to reduce that property perimeter buffer from 15 feet to zero on both sides to eliminate it. So they are in a situation where any landscaping in those areas would be not likely to thrive, would not represent a negative impact to the health, safety, or welfare of the area. The recommendation is contingent on the rezoning of the property as well as the approval of the corresponding development plan and obtaining any necessary building permits, but staff is recommending approval of the variance request at this time. Thank you, Mr. Groom. Any questions? Sir, applicant. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Chris Clendenin with Murphy and Clendenin. I'm here representing the applicant, joined by Mr. Tony Barrett from Barrett Partners, members of the commission and staff. We've discussed the conditions and reviewed staff's recommendations. We agree with the conditions and agree with the recommendation, obviously. So I'm happy to answer any questions about the property that you might have at this point. Otherwise, we just agree with the recommendations of staff. Thank you, Mr. Clendenin. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. All right, thank you. We didn't have any public comments, so we'll bring this back to the commission for a motion. We've got three motions on this one, so. Mr. Polo, you're up. Thank you. Move to approve LOP1, limited zoning map amendment, and Lancaster and Kaiser property. Are all your microphones on? Is it on? There we go. Make it more simple. A move to approve PLN MAR 2416. We have a motion by Mr. Polo, a second by Ms. Wirth. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. All right, that motion passes. Move to approve the variance request for PLN NJSUB 24-7. Okay, we got a motion and a second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, and Ms. Wade, just on this one, page eight, should that be agenda item C instead of B? No, typically when we present them to you, we wait and do the variance after you see the development plan, because it's a little easier to explain. But typically on the agenda, we take them in zone change, variance, and then development plan, so. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Okay, Mr. Polo. So am I moving to approve PLN Zoda 24-6? PLN NJSUB 24-7. 24-7. Yep, page eight. All right, we got a motion? We got you, we got you, Graham. We got a second? Ms. Barksdale, thank you. We'll vote via Granicus. All right, that motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Clendenin. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Okay, all right, so now that put us on page four of the agenda. And it's PLN MER 24-14, this is a continuance. But there's a few, one second, no, there's a few members that had to leave early during that meeting, and I was one of them. And I'm not sure who else had left, so I will affirm that I watched the video last week, actually. So just want to get that on record. Was there anyone else that was not there that needed to affirm? Mr. Pinn? Okay. And Graham, too. And Mr. Nickel, you as well. Hold on, we got a couple of them to the restroom break, I think. So while they're doing that in the neighborhood, we do have one spokesperson, Mr. Simpson, to my understanding. And we're not going back into the neighborhood comments, because we already had those. We're going to anything new that has took place. So any new concessions, or any concessions that may or may not have been accepted, please let us know. Mr. Pohl, do you want to affirm that you- I did review the- You did review it? Okay, thank you. Okay, Mr. Crum. All right. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. Once again, as this is a continued item, staff will be a little bit brief with the information that we kind of discussed previously. Going to just essentially reorient everyone to the site, and then talk about sort of the issues that were raised by the Planning Commission, as well as sort of what the applicant has responded with. You should have at your seats a one page updated development plan staff report, reflecting the new submissions that we will detail momentarily. Just to catch everyone back up, these are a number of properties located on South Limestone, Prawl Street, and Montmullin Street. Totaling a little bit over two acres, 2.13 acres, that are currently zoned R3, R1E, and Neighborhood Business B1. The applicant is seeking to apply the new corridor node zone, so this is newly established. This is the first rezoning request to feature that particular node. Within the place type and development type, they are seeking to place this as a corridor, which is essentially where the corridor node was intended to be located, and are proposing a high density non-residential slash mixed use development type. They are choosing to use this zoning in order to construct a mixed use development, primarily oriented towards student housing. Here we have the locations of the subject property, South Limestone, being shown on the right side of the screen. So the property is shown in white, extending up from Limestone, down Montmullin, and Prawl Street. Zooming in a little bit closer, you get a better idea of the subject property's relationship, as well as the surrounding zoning. This area is actually a mix of zoning, this R3 present in brown being kind of the predominant zoning for the area. This is also the location of Prawl Town, which is a historic African American community that was founded in the 1800s. The land use of the subject property now primarily consists of development that occurred in the 50s, and then later in the 80s and 90s, or what's sort of being impacted with development on this parcel today. But that yellow that you see, the R1E, was a later rezoning. This was done to sort of address some of the pressure from the University of Kentucky, which is present sort of on the opposite side of South Limestone. The rezoning back then was to kind of limit the land uses in an attempt to kind of keep that density down. Along Limestone, which is one of our major corridors, we have that B1, the red zoning. So the subject properties are a mix and a blend of all three of those zoning types that are seeking to take it to the CN zone. The development that comprises the subject property is some commercial development or really mixed use development along South Limestone with restaurants and other business uses on the first floor, residential space above. As you go back into the neighborhood, you have sort of that housing primarily oriented towards student housing. That is single family residential in nature being proposed, being changed into a apartment complex. So here we have views of the subject property as it exists today. So once again, that two story development along South Limestone, including the businesses. As you look down Mont Mullen Street, you see this kind of newer development that is student housing. And then on the opposite side, Prowl Street is a little bit older in character, but is also included in this request as well. Once again, you can see in the distance, we've got the University of Kentucky present there. Here we have a view of the access onto Mont Mullen. So Mont Mullen itself has a stop sign, whereas Prowl Street has a dedicated light and most of the pedestrian crossings. Here we have a development plan that was originally submitted for the subject property. So it consisted of a development that included first floor commercial space and amenity space with a integrated parking structure that wound through the structure. So it was proposing a first floor of amenity space and then six floors of residential, totaling over 100 feet as far as the number of units initially proposed. It looks like that that was at 251 units or 799 bedrooms, with included 484 parking spaces. The development included sort of a vehicular access which wound through the middle of the site, which would allow you to access either Mont Mullen or Prowl Street with the light oriented here. They had an open concept that sort of led to a courtyard here that lined up with facilities at the University of Kentucky. Here we have some of the renderings that were provided at the time of the development that once again showed that first floor amenity space over the six floors of residential and the view corresponding from across the University of Kentucky. This was the corresponding elevation of this, so we have the six floors of residential present to the rear. The interaction with the surrounding properties was an item that was brought up during the last discussion. The implications of the height of the structure as well as the implications of the structure's impact on the surrounding environment. So a shade study was provided that the planning commission identified as sort of requiring further analysis and study to seeing if there could be something done about the height of the structure as well as its relationship to the surrounding properties. Here's the view on the opposite and alternating sides. So here are the properties sort of most impacted, so this is on Prowl Street, so a multi-family residential development with sort of this parking area winding around the rear. And the adjoining single family residential use, which is probably the most impacted, this parcel to the left is included in the applicant's request. This parcel was also subject to the Imagine Nicholasville Road Corridor Study, so this was an area that was recommended for higher density for a higher intensity development to spur future planned improvements to the Nicholasville Road Corridor. This, it was included in a shade study, so the shade study displays basically what the implications were for that particular height of building at each given time of year. The far right, and it's a little bit difficult to see kind of with this rendering, was the area that was most impacted. So during the previous discussion, the shade and the impact on the properties across the street on Mount Mullen was highlighted as during the winter months, they would receive a significant impact from the sun. There was a traffic study provided that staff explained previously. Let me take a look here. I do not believe, actually we need to bring up a separate PowerPoint, apologies. I'm going to bring up the PowerPoint . . . . . We're addressing a versioning of the PowerPoint, apologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . have that neighborhood feel to it, and it also allows a nice variety of units. So people that may be wanting to have their own front door or their own stoop, it opens up this different unit type, which is really great for grad students or young professionals and getting to the next thing. So a mix of unit types. I think in the first meeting, student housing was thrown around a lot, as in this is just exclusively student housing. It's not exclusively student housing. I think we all realize that based on the proximity to campus, this is predominantly going to be filled with students, but at the same time, we lease to anyone that wants to live in the building. And in all of our projects across the country, we have a mix. It's going to be students, grad students, young professionals that want to live in this area, whether they're working, they're faculty and they work on campus and they want to be able to walk back and forth every day or they want to be closer to downtown, nurses or other people that work at hospitals in nearby areas. So it's going to be a mix, which is why we also have a mix of unit types, anything from studios all the way up to four bedrooms. So it's a nice variety and a good diversity of unit types throughout the building. Okay, parking. So this is one thing that we talked about for a while at the neighborhood meeting recently, and I just wanted to talk through it a little bit more. So there's an issue right now on the streets with students parking cars. And obviously this is a student housing area. All the parcels that we're purchasing are currently rented as student housing. And some of the community members seem like it's a major issue that, you know, people are just parking their cars all over and they don't want that to get worse as we bring this building into the neighborhood. So I guess one, from my perspective, I really, it's not going to get worse. And honestly, I think it's probably going to get better. And some of the main reasons for that is right now the student housing is all absentee landlords that are not on the property, they're not ongoing, you know, checking in on the residents or monitoring who's parking on site, who's there day to day. So what happens is you have all the residents, they have all their friends, you're within close proximity to campus and they say, why don't you come park your car, you know, at our house and walk to campus or whatever it might be. There's really no ongoing monitoring of that situation at all, which is not what this is going to be when this project gets built. We have on-site property management 24-7. So someone is there at all times. And we're also working in collaboration with city parking enforcement and community members making sure if there is an issue, we're on it just like that and people are getting towed and it's being strictly enforced. And these streets are actually permit parking only and it is enforced. We talked to a couple people that have actually gotten tickets within a small period of time. So we know there is enforcement. But I think having the professional management and the on-site management that's really diligent about monitoring and, you know, that's going to eliminate the issue of people parking in like front yards and other things like that that's currently happening right now. A little bit more just on the parking and kind of the parking ratio. We really like to provide smart alternatives. We feel like based on this location, based on young adults driving less, that's something that we continue to see year over year, the 46% parking ratio we have right now is absolutely sufficient for this area. And talking about smart alternatives, we have bike share, scooter share, on-site bike parking, on-site bike repair stations. You have transit stops right in this area within close proximity, both LexTran and the University Shuttle. And I guess in the end, if the parking wasn't enough, which I have no doubts that it is, we have already talked to some off-site parking options and we have the opportunity to go off-site and lease additional parking if that were to become an issue in the future. So I also wanted to throw in just the parking ratio in our project compared to some of the others. So you have the two hub deals. I think everyone's familiar with those. One's about the same distance, maybe a little further, and then one is .6 miles. They both have significantly less parking than we do. And then looking at our portfolio, we average around 40% per bed and our project averages about a half a mile from the core of campus. So that's really like to the middle part of campus. And you can see we're closer in this location and we also have a little bit more parking. So we feel like we're in a really good spot. And then a couple, I just threw up a couple of our other projects just so you can get an idea. You know, like our Indiana project, a little further away, over a mile, and we have 56% parking and then you can see some of the other stuff. So the last part of this, I hit on young adults driving less. I don't really want to read through all these. I feel like I've got other stuff to cover, but there is no doubt that young people are driving less. And then on top of that, you have young people are not going to the mall, they're not going to the grocery store. They're ordering all of this online. I mean, going out to dinner, you can see 70% of college students order food every single week and it averages four nights a week. And then even high level, like in the U.S., there's 19.4 million college students. Only 49% of them have a car on campus. So we're continuing to see these trends with younger people just driving less and less and less. In Kentucky, we pulled this statistic that the number of licensed drivers 19 and younger has decreased 38.3% since 2012. So again, just alluding to the fact that the parking ratio is sufficient for what we've seen and what trends we're seeing going forward. All right, so design changes. I think I hit on most of these, so I won't dwell too much, but let's just start on the top left corner. That is the western section of the building that I've been talking about where we really tried to focus on how we're incorporating that into the neighborhood a little bit better. So pulling the building back, that's now a 30-foot setback. That's where we're envisioning that pocket park, which you see in the bottom left corner there. And then as you get a little further east, you have the walkout units. Notice how we've also pulled the building back, and it was like that before, but I think it's important to point out, we've pulled the building back about 30 feet off the street there. So you get a nice jog in the building and just some relief on the facade, and then adding those walkout units really activates that space, gives it more of a neighborhood feel. And then getting a little further to the front of the building, we talked about the retail and 5,400 square feet at this point, and that's spilling over out into this nice public plaza. New streetscape that's going to be great. I think you guys all saw the existing condition out there now. Just not a safe pedestrian environment. So we think this is going to be a really great experience going forward. Some more design changes. So this is talking just about the height of the building. Like I said, we dropped the building 20 feet. It was 102. Now it's about 82 feet max height. And then we also stepped it down one floor on that west section of the building as well and pulled the setback back. Okay, so affordable housing. This was also something that we discussed for a while at the neighborhood meeting. The request was, can we work to incorporate some kind of affordable housing aspect into the project? So we've typically done this two ways. One is you have the units in the building, which we're open to that. The other is we make a contribution to the city's affordable housing fund or housing trust, whatever it might be that they have set up to go ahead and allocate these dollars for new affordable housing units. So we actually talked to Rick McQuaid about this, and he agreed there is an opportunity to contribute to the fund. And as we talked more about it, again, we're open to going whatever path we can go or you would prefer us to go. When you look at the contribution, and the reason we've almost always ended up at a contribution is because they can take those dollars and leverage them, and that $1.5 million turns into what Rick told us, potentially 7X. So now you're talking about $10.5 million that they can use to go build these units. The number that was given to us was you can build one affordable housing unit for about one unit for every $10,000 that's contributed. So we're talking about 15 units that we would build in the project, or potentially 150 units that the city could build with these funds that they could go leverage up to 7X. So I think that's a meaningful difference. At the same time, there was a request to incorporate these in the building, and we think that's important, but that's just something we all sort of have to weigh and discuss going forward. We're open to either options. But like I said, we've done this on several other projects, and we almost always end up at the contribution. I will tell you, when we put them in the building, it has been a little bit of an issue leasing the units. It's just a factor of the people typically leasing affordable units don't really want to live in a building with predominantly student housing. So those two things, the fact that you're talking about 150 units potentially versus 15, and also the fact that we have seen these units struggle to lease in reality, I think we would recommend the contribution, but we're open to continue discussing that, and wherever we land, we're fine with either option. And that's it. So, yes, I think I hit on all the changes, but happy to answer any questions you guys might have. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pol. Looking at your renderings, I'm curious about what you anticipate the building skin will be comprised of. Some of them look like brick. Some of them look like siding material. One second. So good question. It's really early, obviously. Very early in design. But right now it's a mix of brick, fiber cement, and metal panel. What was the third? Metal panel. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. A quick question about the $1,500,000. That's going to an affordable housing fund, and who manages it? Is this by the city? It is. It's the city's affordable housing trust. I don't know the exacts. Will it be earmarked, or will it be prioritized for the Prawl Town community? I don't know, potentially. I think the issue is where is the land to build these new units? And we did talk. We talked with Rick, who I think he runs this program, and he tried to look for a couple areas right around here. I think it's really just availability of a site to build the units, because the dollars in the fund are being used to build new affordable units. So if there were land to become available in Prawl Town, I think they could be. But I don't know. That's something we could discuss with them. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Werks. This is not to throw a monkey wrench in the works. This is simply thinking about going ahead in our environmental initiatives for our community. Is there any discussion of rooftop solar on this? So we went with green infrastructure on the roof, which would conflict with doing solar. Yes, we specifically looked at the environmental kind of aspects and encouragements of the comprehensive plan. Our kind of principle of conversation, we did walk through a lot of the different energy efficiencies that are being proposed in this project, as well as the kind of green roof details in order to make sure that we're specifically addressing that issue. Mr. Owens, you had a question? Okay, I'm sorry. Do we have any other questions? Mr. Pinn. I caught you to say that the land had not been acquired yet, not been closed on. Correct. Obviously, this is subject to you acquiring the land. My question to you is, is that what are the types, your four bedroom units, what do you view them to be marketed for? So we have a mix. We have some four bedroom, two bathroom units, and also some four bedroom, four bathroom units. Typically, the large format, four bed, four bath, those are marketed towards students. The larger units just keep the price point down. They all want to live with their friends. That's the most marketable unit across the board for student housing. The four twos provide a little bit more diversity. I think they're still going to be predominantly student, and like I said, in the end, I think this building will be predominantly students based on proximity, but I think the four twos also allow more of a family style unit. It's going to be at a lower price point as well. So yeah, again, we really wanted to make a conscious effort to have a diverse mix of unit types in this building. So all the way from studios, ones, twos, two bed, one bath, three bed, three bath, four twos, and four fours in the building. But it'll be market rate? Market rate, correct. Yes. Hold up, sir. Excuse me, sir. Sir. All right. Any other questions at the moment for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Prawl Town Neighborhood Association. Some of the folks need to get back to work, and I told them I'd give them the opportunity to stand, those in terms of supporting, to have you all defeat this application. I would just ask that the folks that are here on behalf of Prawl Town that want to see this zone change denied to stand up at this time. Thank you all. As someone who's had the privilege of practicing before this body for a number of years, I understand the current trend, if you will, to increase density. It's been a recurring theme and well-grained in your all's decision-making. But I want to ask you to be mindful of a couple of things, and this is in response to what the staff report said, staff said today. And the building, the design of it, we've never had any dispute that it looks handsome and nice. The question is always the location. And those of us in this room know, and I know as someone who's privileged to represent applicants and objectors, developers, neighborhoods, this is a target-rich environment across the University of Kentucky, because UK doesn't want to have any student housing on its property, so they're okay with letting private developers take over existing neighborhoods and put the student housing there. Okay. We've got to hold down on the background, so I want to make sure Mr. Simpson gets his adequate time, so make sure Mr. Simpson, I'm sorry. And that's why we're here today, let's be real. And let's also be real that if this project gets approved ultimately by the Urban County Council, you know, this 82-foot tall, 557-foot long building, almost two football fields long, it's only a matter of time before the next one comes up, Prowl Street at Mount Nod. It's a target-rich environment. And Prowl Town has been a target-rich environment for a long time, and incrementally the Prowl Town folks have been displaced and students have taken over, and notwithstanding the admonition from the mayor's task force four years ago yesterday to not do that, and we need to stop it, and we need to take action, no action has been taken, and gentrification continues. And Prowl Town, there's just a few people left, relatively few, although they're here. Those who want to see it preserved, formed in the middle of the Civil War, they didn't want to be there, they had to be there, because they couldn't live elsewhere in Lexington. But the fact that they had to be there, they want to keep it that way, because it's a family, it's a family in a broader sense than most of us can appreciate. I've learned that from talking with the Prowl Town folks over the last couple of months. So that's why they're here, to preserve that history. That's why they're here, and you'll hear from them. The changes have been de minimis, and didn't address any of the concerns that were raised at the hearing. The neighborhood meeting has been, if you have the impression that the neighborhood said, if you will provide affordable housing, or if you'll provide more retail, we'll buy into your proposal. That's not what happened. That's a mischaracterization of if that was the message intended to be conveyed at the neighborhood meeting, because I was there, and you can hear from the residents themselves. One person asked a question about affordable housing, one. Now they've got this as a big carrot, which I'll get to in a minute, to get you all to buy into this. Then there's a couple of retail folks that have businesses that are going to be displaced. They want to stay in the area, I get that, I understand that. Their needs could be accomplished by these guys buying the property, expanding the retail, and leave the student housing alone. You'd be happy with that, I would presume, if they could stay in the area, have a bigger space. So their needs can be met with a lot less intrusive aspect of what's going on here, which is student housing. Now, this case presents a dangerous precedent in a lot of ways, besides the potential real likelihood, I should say, and the comp plan talks about, be careful what you approve and the impact it will have on foreseeable future development, because if you approve this one, this monster, more coming down to Mount Mullen and Prawl Town. We know that from experience. But as big as our comprehensive plan is, and as many as I've read since 1988, I have never seen one sentence say, if you come in with a check for $1.5 million, or make a donation for $150,000, that is a valid consideration for a legal zone change. That language is conspicuous by its absence, it doesn't exist. Now I say this in terms of the law, because the fact that, and they've made no bones, people don't want to live with students. What they really want to do is write a check for $1.5 million and $150,000. None of that was ever agreed to by the neighborhood. One lady, Betty Boyd, who's the president of Prawl Town, who couldn't be here today, in these neighborhood meetings, people just ask questions. Now Betty Boyd made it expressly clear this project was unacceptable, with respect to the proposed changes they were, they hadn't had any proposed changes at the time they met with us. She was saying, you know, this is, you're going to ruin the neighborhood. The fact that an applicant offers $1.5 million and $150,000 to get a zone change is legally impermissible. In my judgment, legally, this zone change application is null and void at this moment. It is impermissible to offer it, and the fact that it's been offered, you can't unring a bell, you can't forget that you've heard it. So it's been tainted. So I make that objection. I won't belabor it anymore, but as a matter of law, in my judgment, this application is tainted and void. Now, one thing hasn't been changed is the parking. That was a big concern of the neighbors. Big concern. 800 students, 450 parking places, in an area that's already inundated with students, has been for years. I used to park there. Now their suggestion is have kind of a private police force or management company go around and check to see if any of the people that rent units from them are parking on the street, and then they'll call a tow truck to tow them away. Well they charge $200 a month, they told us, for parking spaces. They only got 450 and they got 800 students. They say, well, we have 46% parking spaces for the people who live in our units and that's enough. You know, maybe there is some slight reduction. Not too many people are going to give up their cars to walk, let's be real. Cowboys didn't give up their horses to ride in a stagecoach and us humans aren't giving up our cars to walk, ride, or bus. We like that independence and the freedom that we have with a car. So their assumption that they won't have cars and they can police them, well, how are they going to police them? They say, well, we'll have our students register their cars. So if I'm a student, I don't want to pay $200 a month to them, I'll register my parents' car and drive another car. How are they going to know? How are they going to enforce that? There's so many gaps here to be exploited to the detriment of the neighborhood. The precedent size of this building. Not enough parking in an area that's been inundated by students for years. This is a major gentrification on steroids. It used to be gentrification was the snout houses, if you remember. We were all concerned back 25 years ago, we got snout houses, people, the neighbors complained. Now we got big box. The big boxes are coming. This is a report four years ago, Mayor's Commission for Racial Justice and Equality, I quoted from it extensively last time, I won't do it again, speaks for itself, was there before your current comp plan was adopted. And I would suggest that the folks that are here for Crawltown relied on somebody taking some effort to implement the protective features contained in this report to thwart gentrification of historic African-American neighborhoods and that hasn't happened. So you all have a critical decision to make. There's ample feeling about, well, we have to put nice buildings and make them super dense. It's right across from UK. What's wrong? What's wrong is we're doing the same old thing we've been doing to African-American communities for decades. We are making them extinct. And if you approve this, you're advancing Crawltown's extension. And I ask for you to turn it down. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson, for speaking on behalf of the neighborhood and Crawltown. I want to see, before we move another step, if any commission has any questions before I call back up the applicant. Okay. Mr. Nicholson. I will keep this very brief since this is kind of a continuation and we've already done a kind of formal rebuttal, you know, kind of period. But I do want to say that we are not displacing any homeowners in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Right now and for quite some time, these property have been student housing. Instead what we are doing is we are taking 60 beds of student housing and increasing that on one of our most busy corridors and on the exact block that an element of the Comprehensive Plan takes a picture of and says this is the block that we must increase residential density on. That's in the Imagine Lexington that we've talked about this kind of last time. This was pointed to by our Comprehensive Plan. A development group saw that and came in and approached the block that the Comprehensive Plan specifically called that. We are not trying to target any specific neighborhood. We are trying to implement what the Comprehensive Plan and its elements called for. As far as the off-site contributions from neighborhood and community benefits, it happens all the time. It happens whether it's to an HOA, whether it's to different neighbors, it happens all the time. It goes to LFUCG traffic engineering for different off-site improvements. We did that and I believe it was $250,000 for the Peninsula. I know it was about that for the Fritz Farm at the Summit. That happens all of the time. I certainly disagree with Mr. Simpson's approach or his claim that an off-site contribution suddenly makes this change null and void. With regards to not wanting to give up our cars, that might be true about his generation. It might even be true about my generation. What I thought was interesting is he said that people won't give up horses for cars. We did. People said that you wouldn't give up a Model T for public transportation. We did. It's no different. Each generation changes and we've already went through the stats to show that these generations are changing. I myself walk every day to work about a mile, mile and a half. I never thought in a million years I would be the person that would actually walk to work, but I do because times do in fact change with regards to how people decide to function with their community and you add more walkability, you get more walkers. That's what this development does on South Limestone. It doubles the pedestrian improvements. It makes significant changes to the intersection of Prawl as well. Where there are students, where there's a huge population of students that stacks every day walking, we're trying to improve that situation. We're trying to improve that specific block Justice called for in the comprehensive plan. As far as the statement that it did not change what the raised concerns were, we dropped the building height. We stepped down the leg that was the main concern. We pulled the building back further away from the most closest structure and are trying to add a community benefit specifically for that area. We have again cut the length and we have even changed the façade on that side in order to give that more of a neighborhood feel, more of a walk-up feel that is there. So I do think that we did address all of the concerns that were raised. Is it to the satisfaction of the members of the community that are here tonight? I'm assuming no based on Mr. Simpson's comments. I do not in any way, shape or form believe that we put off the impression that we walked out of the HOA meeting saying that they are in complete agreement. You would have heard me and Mr. Simpson up here at the very beginning of this say that we were in agreement with the neighborhood and that this has been settled. We did not give that impression and we certainly are not trying to whatsoever. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Simpson, do you want to follow up or are you good to go? I mean a lot of people have walked out. I don't want to stay here, Mr. Chair. I know but we had a lot of them spoke earlier too and we got a council meeting in here at what time? Six o'clock. Six o'clock? Or five-thirty? That's right. With all due respect, Mr. Chair, these people signed up to speak, they're entitled to speak. We need to extend this hearing, it needs to be extended, but these people came here to be heard. They're entitled to be heard. All right. You're weighing on me, Mr. Simpson. I'm fine. That's all I'm going to do. Everybody's looking at me. I guess I'm going to take it, huh? Let me take a five-minute recess because I want to make sure we do the right thing. Let me take a five-minute recess and we'll be right back. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. We'll be back here at four o'clock. My name is Larry Price. I was born in 133 Mount Mullen Street. And pretty much it's been about four generations in my family as well. My question is, I don't mind progress. New things. What's going to happen? I don't mind changes. But you think about this. What is it your neighborhood expense for this change? And I look at each and every one of y'all. People come from different parts of this nation. And come to visit and have a family reunion. So when you get ready to make a decision, put yourself in these spots. Where are you going to have a reunion for your family in the neighborhood? When I was a real little kid, maybe fourth or fifth grade, they started the theological seminary. And I just think about if it happened to you. Applause. Sorry. My heart rate is a little high and he's anxious, so I think he's going to stand. Hello, I'm Dylan Mears, I live at 545 South Limestone. A lot of people today have talked about my generation, but nobody from my generation has talked yet. So I thought I'd give my little two cents on the matter. First of all, so many of us don't drive cars because we can't afford to. It's expensive to own cars. And so a lot of them are more likely to have cars than someone like me. Yeah. People are going to malls and stuff like that around the city. As a student, I can say my life does not revolve around campus. I'm not only walking to campus and that's my only way to get there. My generation will not be willing to give up cars because owning cars is a status symbol and also is very convenient. Lexington isn't walkable. The public transportation system. A lot of people in my generation just don't use public transportation. I just want to close out with today is a Jewish holiday and I know at least one of the members here is a part of the Jewish community. And I want to reemphasize to that person, Tikkun Olam. Please. Good afternoon. I'm Mary Finn. I came today because I got the call that my presence was going to mean something. And that's basically what I came for is to show solidarity as an objection to this zone change. However, I've sat through this. Right now I'm so emotional that I have so much I want to say until my time is going to run out before I introduce myself. I'm a long time president of Prawl Town. I've sat here and I've thought my connection to Prawl Town. My aunt was one of the first residents of Prawl Town. My mother passed 19 years ago and she was 101. My aunt was 40 years older than her. I'm not a math student, but you can figure out how long I've had a connection with Prawl Town. I'm standing here today with my heart heavy to think that you're going to destroy a neighborhood, a historical neighborhood. And it always seems to go back to the black communities when you want to destroy a neighborhood. Am I through? I am so sorry that I won't be able to tell my grandchildren this is where my mother was born. Because right now you're destroying history. I really don't understand how we can perceive that for all these years we have not had a place to park our cars. And now we're going to put a whole new city and determine that that's going to solve our problems. Where were you back in the 70s and 80s when we need it? And all of a sudden we come up with all of these magical things that's going to solve this problem. But look who you are destroying. You are destroying my roots. My roots. My great-grandchildren who most of you right here now who have gray hair like I have, have been able to share that with your children. I think it's ridiculous. And we know it's ridiculous. This is not affordable. Affordable for whom? If you look around the city, every time affordable has been mentioned, we have been decreased. So let's start making affordables and make it so that everybody can just have a nice home and enjoy what they want to enjoy. I apologize for the way I feel. I don't like to speak emotionally. But right now my heart is heavy. I'm seeing a community that's going to be wiped out that will no longer ever be replaced. I can look around. Most of these people in here right now don't know me. They know of me. I'm Lou Johnson's sister. Oh, the community was so happy to build that park floor, but nobody put any more than a swing there. You've never developed it anymore. And it was a neighborhood, but it has not been developed. Folks, when are we going to stop letting one school destroy the entire city? We need to stand up and think about it. All these things that have been proposed, do you want it in your neighborhood? Thank you. The Fayette County Neighborhood Council voted in general meeting to support the Prawl Town neighborhood. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of FCNC. I'm going to speak very briefly. I can't be as eloquent as the people who live there. First, the meeting documents, they talk about equity and equitable development, and obviously the Planning Commission and staff need to really emphasize paying attention to that point. Lexington has a history of eliminating African-American neighborhoods, and that really shouldn't be allowed to continue. University of Kentucky should be a party to this. I would probably suggest that planning work much more closely on student housing with the neighbors, with the university, and with planning. However, I remember the Town Gown Commission, and they talked a lot, but didn't get a whole lot done, in my opinion. Third point, the CN Zone, I think, has probably contributed to having to have this second hearing. The Zone allows unlimited height with no setbacks, and that doesn't make any sense to me if you're going to put it in a neighborhood setting or even on a corridor. I think the Commission should ask staff to review that language and make suggestions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm afraid something's going to freeze over. This is the first time me and Bruce Simpson have ever been on the same side, and it's a horseshoe. My name's Richard Maloney. I've been here for a long time. I had the luxury to work for a nonprofit that did first-time homebuyers. Betty Boyd and Bill Bingham came to our office, and we were able to buy about 13 to 15 homes from the neighborhood slum landlords. A couple speakers got up today and spoke. We got them homes. To say that this neighborhood's dying, I saw these speakers get up. They're still holding their homes here. This neighborhood is not dying. This neighborhood is still continuing to go on, and to bring something like this is not going to fit with this neighborhood to make it survive. You've had great people come out of these neighborhoods. I have one lady who got a house, a single mother, a teenager, African-American. Her son was five years old. I took him up to his room. I watched the kid get in his room. He was amazing how smart he was. I watched him go through school. He ended up going to the University of Louisville and played football. There's great people come out of Paultown. You had Betty Boyd's grandson come out as a quarterback for the University of Kentucky. The best one that I know, a good friend of mine, and I didn't know he came out of it, he sat there for two hours telling me about it, was T.D. Young, the greatest musician ever to come out of Conductions in Kentucky who got inducted into the Hall of Fame. have some concerns that you all want to bring to your table. These are major problems. One is I've never heard what I heard about giving $1.5 million in my life, and I've been on the council longer than anybody, most of them, and said through more zone change than anybody. Never have I heard that language ever. So just to let you know, I don't know if that's Secondly, the problem I have, not you guys, but this horseshoe has sent a wrong message to the African American community, and I'll give you one example. For eight years, I fought for the first Baptist African American, the oldest church in Lexington, Kentucky. This body up here didn't help me, but we ended up winning, and we got that church staying here forever and ever, and now we're fighting here, the oldest African American neighborhood in Lexington, Kentucky. And do you all want to send a message across? No, I'm not saying, but Lexington does not care about our history for the African American community. I ask you to not support this and work with these neighborhoods. Work makes good work, and it worked when I worked with community ventures. We were able to bring homeownership, and you got people still living here. So do not lose these people. That's all I ask. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening, brother chair, council. My name is Timothy Mitchell. I live at 1087 Oakwood Drive. I'm a small business owner. I've got property in a couple of different areas. I want to just talk to you about Prawl Town. As the president of the Lexington Bears Motorcycle Club, we often met in Prawl Town due to Ms. Betty. One of the things Ms. Betty has always done is tried to make it viable that we be successful in everybody that she met. I worked with Ms. Vivian for 10 years at General Electric, and she was another figment of that community that's always helpful. Ms. Finn was my middle school social studies teacher, and Mr. Morris, Lebo Morris, was also one of my instructors, and they came from Prawl Town. So I ask you to reject this because there's several different factors here. As a landlord, I try to produce affordable housing for families, two-bedroom duplex 550. So I'm listening to the gentleman, the young fellows back here, that's talking about the project. He's telling me he doesn't know what his prices are. When you build a unit, you know what your prices are. How much is a four-bedroom affordable housing unit for people to live in? If he cannot share that with you now, what is he not going to share with you in the future? We will not be able to afford their affordable housing. Section 8 will not pay his price. I promise you they won't. And I'm just finding out that we don't even have it in Lexington anymore. How many of our people need affordable housing in Lexington? And I'll share with you one more thing, and I'll quit. My mother was born on Ellerslie Avenue, right over here by Charles Young Park. That community was totally taken apart, and it was never put back together, and it was a town all its own. So when you look up the history of Ellerslie Avenue, you'll see how significant it was. It was a Bluegrass Trust community, and most of those domestics served the people right here in Belcourt. Henry Clay's house is still there. Nobody put anything in his yard. Mary Todd Lincoln's building's down the street. Nobody put anything in her yard. Don't put anything in the Prawl Town yard. They can use tobacco housing on Broadway that's empty and use that property. They can use it on Leastown Road. There's plenty of tobacco houses that are not in business that they can use that property. God bless you all. Mr. Chair, my name is Jacques Wiggin. I thought I was coming here in follow-up to the last meeting and that we would hear conversation about light and air easement. I did not hear that tonight, and I didn't hear it at the meeting. But in light of the limitations that you've given, allow me to have but an extra moment and to change gears for a bit. Sharks, piranha, and death by a thousand cuts, whether it be big chunks, little chunks, or small incisions, they all have one thing in common, and they'll kill you. As an associate minister of Historic Pleasant Green Baptist Church, I rise, if not in the stead, at least in the memory of our late and beloved pastor and native Prowl Towner, none other than Reverend T.H. Peoples Jr., who would certainly have a word to say today. Reverend Peoples is a son of the church who they talked about he, his sister, and his mother would come over the hill to get to Pleasant Green Baptist Church. Pleasant Green historically has been a neighborhood church that had feeder neighborhoods that went as far north as Georgetown Street and as far south as Prowl Town. And while I could talk about how many great people come out of that church and through those communities, I want us to focus for just a minute on one particular one, and that is a former UK retiree, and his name is Deacon Richard Briscoe. Two weeks ago, we celebrated with him as a church his 100th birthday, and in that he told a story of his childhood in which he had, where he put all of his possessions on his back with his family, having to leave their home and their neighborhood of Amstown because there was something being built on that neighborhood called Memorial Coliseum. He then had, I wondered how many times that he has seen this happen in his life, because I know as a deacon at Pleasant Green, he watched across the street from Maxwell where they tore down South Hill neighborhood in order to make something called Rupp Arena, and they made in this place the family so they have a place to park the cars. If he went down the back way and looked at Patterson Street, I know he saw recently where they destroyed Davistown and Irish Bottoms to once again make a convenient way for UK to have what was then called the Newtown Pike Extension, now ironically is called Oliver Way. I know as a UK employee that he was well aware of South Lexington, so he saw the bit by bit, piece by piece dismantlement and destruction of Prowl Town. So the question for us today is how is it that we are moving? We're finding that Lexington's Great Landshark and its private sector piranhas have a propensity and a tendency to have a very limited appetite, and while I don't say that they're limited to having a love for dark meat, I will say that it's always ironic how they end up eating up African-American neighborhoods. So the question for us now before us is what would Deacon Briscoe say? I took solace in hearing his story of thinking that well, you know, that was then and this is now. The question is going to come is after today's decision, whatever that is, will he have the opinion that that was then and this is now? A cut by a thousand, a death by a thousand cuts carries it with the idea that I didn't kill you. My little harm, my little pain, what little I did to you did not kill you, but we know that's not how it works. Thank you. Hey, would someone grab that microphone? Hello, my name is Margaret Ann Harris and I live at Colfax, but my neighbor that lives behind me, he passed out the papers to you all, and what he said is true. Cars parking is horrible in our neighborhood and yet they want to set up and build this building and nobody has nowhere to park them. If they was really wanting to build something in somewhere else and get them a place to park, it'd be built with parking space on the thing that they are trying to build, not put them out in the community where we can't survive. I have lived in Prawl Town for the last 26 years of my life and on Colfax, I have watched them misplace families. And on the left side where I live, myself and the lady up the street that lives in the little red house, who waves at me every time I go out, we're the only original people that's still in the neighborhood. I've watched them put up houses on our street and they rented it to students. And I don't think that's fair. I can say that the students are not loud and wild like they said when I was moving over there that they was going to be. But there is no more room in Prawl Town for another car to park on the street. If they're going to build it, tell them to build themselves a parking lot where it won't bother us. Forget fixing up a park for them to sit and relax in. Build a parking lot if you're going to do it. But I prefer that they wouldn't do it. Because what am I going to leave my grandchildren when I bought the house? I told them that's their inheritance. Am I going to lose that too? And then Prawl Town is the only place I have lived as long as I have in my lifetime. And today is my birthday and I've already asked Jesus to make a way for us in Prawl Town. Because I don't want to see it wiped out. I'm living in a house that is 114 years old. And when they tore down those two barns, I got a whole new zoo in my backyard. And I don't know which animal it is. I don't know if it's groundhogs or whatever. I constantly hear them scratching at my house. I believe they're eating the flooring. So one day, my grandkids are going to have to tear it down and rebuild. So again, I'm begging you guys. Have a heart for the people. We're all family. What would Jesus do? He tells us to love one another. And this right here is not love. I'm your brother. I'm your sister. When are we going to start loving each other and acting like we are one big family? That's all I have to say. Rolanda Woolford, Leicester Historical Black Neighborhood Association. Project 6. Hope 6 is what it was called. Charlecourt, Aspendale were torn down. Those families were displaced. I know, because I was one of them. We were never allowed to go back to the neighborhood. Davis Bottoms, Irish Town were promised that they could come back to get a house that they can't get. Didn't come back. The part of providing funds to the affordable housing, we're not going to see that money. It's for the city. Developers can do whatever they want. You can earmark it all you want. But the next generation or the next staff member will say, oh no, it wasn't meant for that. It was meant for this. It happens. We've seen it. We experienced it all the time. Parks and Rec, they're not guaranteed to give us the money either to do any improvements on the park. Douglas Pool, we're still waiting for it to come. Trust in the community and in the city, we don't have it. It's heartbreaking. It's discouraging. We receive letters every day in the mail, we want to buy your home. So we're supposed to feel comfortable. One of them on the planning commission's question on the table, it said, do you like where you live? Do you like your neighborhood? Yes or no? My answer is yes, because that's why I moved there. Renter, homeowner, we moved there for a reason. Thank you. Thank you for all your comments. Bring us back to the commission here. Further discussion, questions? I want to close the comment part out and just bring it back to us now. We open it up amongst each other. I really appreciate hearing from everyone and understanding the significance of Prawltown. I'm not originally from Lexington. However, I've been here for about 40 years now. It's a hard thing that we've been tasked with here. As planning commission members, we're trying to fulfill the future plans for Lexington in the general sense. That's what makes it really hard, because it's not about necessarily what the impact is on the surrounding neighborhood. It's more about what is being proposed and does that fit our plan. That's what makes it really hard, because this does fit our plan. It really does. More density. We're a growing city. We're short on housing of all types. And so it makes it very difficult. One thing that I would like to see, but I was kind of up here just kind of seeing, the houses that are being taken over right now, all of them are owned by people who don't share that address. When I look at the PVA, there's another address associated with the owners. So none of these are owner-occupied houses. Actually, the last one shown on the end is an owner-occupied house, and it's not part of the plan. So I guess I don't know exactly where I'm going with my comments, other than to say what is it that we could possibly do to preserve the home ownership that is there. This particular project, I think they picked the right space because of the lack of home ownership. However, I guess my biggest concern is how do we keep it from getting bigger? How do we keep more from coming? Because everything along Limestone is pretty much commercial, so it plays itself very well into the corridor node, this new zone that we have. So I don't know. That's just kind of a general question. I don't have the answer, and I don't know how to get to the answer. But if there's a way for us to protect what remains of the Prawl Town neighborhood, I'm definitely for that. My comment on that would be I am in full agreement of your statement. This project itself does meet the requirements to be changed in the zoning to the newly adopted corridor node. It was even outlined on the comprehensive plan itself. We are here as committee members to review zone changes based upon the comprehensive plan. So this is a land use issue based upon the comprehensive plan. There is a concern about how this could further affect the neighborhood other than what we've talked about today, which is parking concerns, which seem to be a really big concern. Through my experience here, from the representation that we've seen by the passionate neighbors in this wonderful community, it would take a lot for anyone to try to encroach on this wonderful community that has been represented here today. The properties that we are looking at, the way that they are zoned now, and the recommendations by the staff that reference the comprehensive plan, it does make sense. It does make sense. The concern would be the increasing of the corridor node into this historic neighborhood. And from my experience and from your all's representation of your community here, I don't think that, in my opinion, I don't think that that would occur. So in my mind and from my experience on this committee, that is not a concern to me. The concern to me would be how the parking is addressed and how the building height and total number of units and site design are addressed. And I think that the developer has answered a lot of those questions. Once again, I do not see the ability to an additional property owner to rezone a property from residential to commercial node beyond this location. Those are my thoughts. This is a difficult decision, but we've been tasked to approve or deny zone change request based upon the comprehensive plan. And when we are asked to be a part of this committee, we're asked whether or not we would support the comprehensive plan and whether we like certain aspects of it or not, that's what we are tasked to do. So I just want to thank you all for being here. This is a wonderful community as evident by the representation of everybody here. And it's wonderful to see a community that is in love with their neighbors. So thank you for being here. And from my perspective, I can say that the corridor node will not be extended beyond these properties that we are addressing now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Wilson. Yes. In fact, if you all look, and first of all, I would like to thank you too for your patience, both here today and for the previous times that we were together. One of the things, if you look at the videotape, I went on, I guess I went on about a five or six minute soliloquy about the value that I saw in Prawl Town. And a part of that, not because I live there, but because I too have been a witness to all the things that have happened around this community related to gentrification. From Adams Town to Maddox Town, you can name the towns. And I know we have around 26 hamlets around that we think and we value them as well. So the city has asked us, well, the city actually indicated that they wanted to do what they could to protect these hamlets. And the question that I had was, are there ways that we could protect other communities as well as we move along? The confliction that we have here is that we're trying to figure out how to manage our progress and how to manage smartly the growth in our community. Our comprehensive plan is a guideline, ladies and gentlemen. It's not like we've been to the mountaintops and witnessed something from tablets. This is a guideline. And the guideline was designed to help us to smartly design our city, not to destroy the parts of our city for the most part. So our guideline is to indicate it, even within our comprehensive plan, that we should do what we can to protect communities in our city, because it's to the benefit of our total community that we do so. So I don't want to elaborate long, but I'll simply say that the hope was that when developers and community can get together, it makes our jobs a lot easier. But when there is a divergence, then we have to make a decision. My position is I still stand with the people of Prowl Town. I believe very strongly that you all are. Hold on. Hold your applause. We haven't voted yet. That's right. Right. I've only won vote, by the way. But I have definitively believed that you are doing the right thing in terms of fighting for what you believe in as your community. And at the last session I had, I even went through some of the history of Prowl Town, because we knew a lot of people there. And I even praised some churches who had helped and put a lot of money into making sure that Prowl Town would continue to survive. So I understand that, and I understand your pain, but I also understand the intellectual system that is going along in terms of the destruction of many of our communities in this city. Our comprehensive plan was designed to smartly grow our city, not to destroy our communities. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Mickler. This is a tough one for me as well. I've really appreciated hearing the stories from the neighbourhood as part of the comments. Really hearing back about a neighbourhood, as it was said, that was founded in the Civil War period. And knowing that the streets, the houses, the businesses in the neighbourhood all carry stories that are meaningful beyond just the architecture and design features. And really weighing that with the, as I walked around the neighbourhood, looking at how many of those pieces of history have already been removed and replaced. And really thinking, because I really understand the place that people are coming from, and trying to weigh that with what we as a community have been setting out to do with the comprehensive plan with this new zone, where we really are trying to create places where people can live without driving and really genuinely reducing the next generation's car use. And as we look at this location, we have this property is at this turning point, is at this node, finding in this historically important neighbourhood, and it's also along our major corridor, and it's across the street from the university. And struggling with this decision, as are some of the other commissioners, with balancing the historic and neighbourhood sensitivity with our desires for more places for people to live, where they can walk. And I mean, it's a really hard call. I think no matter how the vote comes, I personally am going to have some regret for the outcome, because I see positives and negatives on both sides of this. You know, as far as the zone, I think that this location on Limestone makes sense for the new corridor zone. It does make me uncomfortable how far back into the neighbourhood it reaches. And, you know, as far as some of the details that have been changed from the last time, you know, I am glad to see and appreciative that we do now have some doors on the Mont Mullins side of the building, and that there has been some pullback in space created on the end of the building. As I see it, the stories and the places are important, and it really hurts to lose those. But I also really value the opportunity for future, for more people to live in this area. And that's why I'm leaning towards supporting this. Excuse me. Mr. Bowe. Mr. Bowe. I have to agree with Mr. Mickler. This is probably one of the hardest projects that we've looked at. And my initial reaction when I looked at the proposal as it existed two weeks ago was that the applicant had put a huge amount of energy into designing a building that responded to the University of Kentucky and turned its butt on the community that it was that it was affecting and taking for itself. And so I was kind of, I wish that they had looked at the Prawl Town neighborhood as an amenity as strong and as an amenity as strong and as important as they looked at the university, so that when they thought about what they were going to put there, they would have had a face of the building that spoke to the neighborhood. That said, I think that what they showed us today goes up toward that. And they took a lot of steps to try to make that happen. In my opinion, the six story portion of the building that's being proposed would be very difficult to argue with. It doesn't penetrate deeply into the neighborhood. And it's a perfectly aligned with the community node zoning that they're trying to achieve. One thing I would like to clarify is that the comprehensive plan has a whole bunch of different guidelines and no very few projects nail all of those guidelines. And so one of the difficult things for us is to decide whether the project is nailing enough of the guidelines that we can give it some leeway on some of the other ones that it's not getting right. And so that's the case here because one of the guidelines is that we should be protecting existing neighborhoods. And while I don't think there's a very good argument that this is protecting existing neighborhoods, I also don't think that it's as destructive as you all are feeling it's going to be. And I also think there's opportunity for the applicant to continue to move toward making a much more sensitive presentation to the community as it engages the community to put the effort that they put into the way it engages the university. Take that same attitude and continue working on how it engages the community. Do some things with scale. Do some things with volume and materials that speak more directly to the community and make it feel like it's a good neighbor. So that's my hope and that's where I stand right now. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Owens. If I may. When I first saw this in subdivision and as our staff always tells us in subdivision committee, we look at something as if the zone change has already occurred. We were not considering other parts of the commission here were considering the zone change for recommendation. When I saw this, I thought it was a good plan. I thought it was needed. And I thought it was a good plan. The applicants come back after hearing everyone two, three weeks ago, whenever it was, and they made revisions. And I think the revisions are better and are better for the neighborhood. With the neighborhood, I mentioned last time, at that time, I think I said I was probably the senior person on the commission here. I'm not anymore, thanks to Mr. Penn coming back. But having been around Lexington for 50 plus years and having worked in the Peralta area, I knew Peralta and Peralta, you all remember it. You know it. You've lived it and you're part of it. It's not like it was 50 years ago. You've lost a lot of it, but you've still got the history there and you will always have the history there. Ms. Barksdale is correct in the fact that what we're seeing here as a request, the owners aren't Peralta. They live elsewhere. And it's all just rental units. This plan is only affecting that property. Does it get very close to Peralta and the rest of you all? Yes, it does. Can you all maintain and exist? I hope so. You know, I'm the sort of person that, you know, I'm a traditional sort of a person and I don't always like change. And the staff has presented themselves, presented us with a concept in agreement, support of, and they would be the first to tell you that I don't always agree with them. But in this case, I do. As others have said, this is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, all of Lexington. And that's what we've got to look at when we consider something like this. It's all of Lexington. We can say that, you know, UK basketball played last night, everybody loved them. Everybody was great. That's a good thing. But now, well, they're bad neighbours. You know, we've got to have a balance there. They can't be good sometimes and bad when we don't want them to be. Are they pushing students to us? To some degree, yeah, they are. But we've got to take it and work on it the best that we can to make Lexington the best that it can be. We've had Hub 1 and 2, I believe. We've approved something on Maxwell Street, which is very much this size. And, you know, as everybody's seen, there's been revisions here. They've dropped the floor on part of it. They've increased setbacks and so forth. So, you know, it's not going to make the people in the audience happy, but I'm going to have to support this. And whenever you're ready, I can make a motion, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Ms. Wirth. I would like to say something because our comprehensive plan covers land use, it covers growth, the future of Lexington. It also talks about equity. And as one of my constituents reminded me recently, we give a lot of lip service to protecting our rural hamlets. And we've said we are advocates of a sense of place. But they also reminded me we have yet to pass any kind of ordinance that provides money to help protect those. And we have yet to do anything that says we need to go beyond our rural hamlets and look at our urban neighborhoods, where we also have people who have it. I don't want to just say just neighborhood. There's something about a neighborhood that is a true community, where people are connected. You know, a lot of us live in places where we drive in, we hit our clickers, we go in the garage, we don't know our neighbors, or we may know our next door neighbors, but we don't know the ones three or four houses down. And when we lose that sense of connectedness to the people we live in community with, something happens to us that I don't think is a good thing for us as a community. So I'm really torn, because I value what this community has. And although I would like to say that I agree with my colleagues at either end, that this doesn't have to be the destruction of this neighborhood. And I will say to the applicant, the first thing I said, which was, I love the development. I love what you proposed. Today, I love it better, because I think you've shown a lot of sensitivity to the neighborhood, and I really appreciate that. But it's in the wrong place. And so I'm going to have to vote no on this. I don't know how I could have been here as long and feel as new as I do right now. But I wasn't here in the beginning for the first hearings. But this is my third comp plan. And I've seen the comp plan evolve into something that's more city friendly. It's less, you know, take a 200-acre farm and cut it into, build huge parking lots like Hamburg. I've seen a lot of growth in this thing right now. But I also live in the rural, I'm a farmer, and I live in North Lexington. And I know what the value of those communities are all around, and the history and the camaraderie and the Russell Cave schools and those types of things. But I will tell you that I'm going to talk about something here that's a very sensitive subject, because at some point, this city has to say to the University of Kentucky, we can't continue to build your housing. I'm a big UK fan, said across from Mike last night. But I will tell you that the nature that we want to create in this community is not about expansion, it's not about factories, it's not about any of that stuff, it's about people. So I don't have the information to talk like my fellow commissioners have on this, because I haven't, you know, I tried to watch the, but you don't get to feel it, but on the video. But I will tell you that this situation right now is I'm probably going to vote with Judy. And the reason for that is I don't have enough information on the node and those types of things that I need to get up to speed on. But I'm also doing it because I want to say the University of Kentucky knows enough. And I'm not grandstanding out playing I'm dead serious about this. They have a they have a role to play at this. And for all the good things that they've done, expansion is something that will never stop with them. The only way it will stop is if we decide that we're going to protect these communities. All right. Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I said I'd do it. You know, I must say, sitting here for as long as I have many years, usually if I do something like this, I've got a good idea as to what's going to take place. I have no idea what's going to take place. And that's okay. But my motion is going to be for approval of subtext subtext acquisitions LLC's own map amendment to Hazen property Mount Mullin Street subdivision J.A. property development plan for plan M.A.R. 24 dash 14 subtext acquisitions LLC for the reason provided by the staff. Okay. Then we have a motion from Mr. Owens and we have a second by Mr. Nickel. Any further discussion to that motion? Mr. Mickler. Well, this is just a point of clarification on the motion. In the staff recommendation, I don't see if they took up any recommendation on the offers from the developer regarding the and I guess how to handle that if that should be. You're looking at this is the motion on the zone change. So the recommendations from the staff are about the compliance with the comprehensive plan. I think the purple sheet is the development plan. But you're correct. It's not in there. And it's not going to be in there. Okay. They have volunteered that. And Mr. Nicholson's statement was correct. And it has happened, you know, probably, I would say fairly with both with all of the development attorneys that are in this room at times, but we're not going to make that part of your funding. Okay. Okay. There's no further discussion. The vote is up. And, oh, Mr. Poe, you got something? I'll make one last comment that I meant to make earlier. And that is that there's a reason why there's a housing shortage. It's because we make it so difficult to build housing. Nationwide, this is happening. And we're not any exception to it. And so that understanding figures into my thinking on this as well. Ultimately, if we continue to make housing impossible to build, it's only going to get worse and worse. We've got to at some point fight the bullet and build housing. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Okay. We'll vote via Granicus. Okay. That motion fails. So the floor is open. You got five no's and four yeses. So now we need some findings. Okay. You working on those? All right. Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. Hey, excuse me, audience. We're not done yet. No. No. Not quite. Mr. All right. So we're going to take a five-minute recess. We need to get findings for disapproval. So that's why I said we're actually not done yet. We haven't fully declined it. So we need five minutes to find the findings for the disapproval. So give us until 5.15. Be okay at 5.13. 5.13, because I'm starting at 5.13. Yeah. Y'all can stay here. I'll go use the restroom, but we'll be back at 5.13. 5.13. All right, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson, can you read that? Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move for disapproval of PLNMAR24-13, subtext of acquisitions, LLC, based on the following findings. Number one, the requested corridor node, CN zone, corridor node, sorry, zone does not agree with the 2045 comprehensive plan's theme, goal two, objective B, because it does not respect the context and design of area surrounding development project. Number two, the requested corridor node, CN zone, does not protect existing housing affordability for all and expand low and middle income housing across the city, and specifically in this surrounding neighborhood. Number three, the requested corridor node increases density far past the major corridor negatively, impacting density within the existing, no, impacting density and corridors within the existing residential neighborhood that's seen as C, theme A, goal, is that 10 or 11? Two. Is that in cursive or manuscript? Because he can't read it. It doesn't look like a 10. It looks like 10. Is it 10 or two? Oh, goal one. Oh, my God. Oh, one B, objective. You good? Yeah. You good? All right. That's it. All right. We have a motion by Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? We have a second by Ms. Wirth. I think we can go ahead and vote via Granicus. Okay. That motion passes for disapproval, and next up, we need to do an indefinite postponement for the subdivision. So, Mr. Wilson, you want to take that for the development plan? Sorry. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for an indefinite postponement of the PLNMDJP24-62, Hazen Property, Mount Mullen Street Subdivision, and J Property called Verve Lexington. Okay. And we have a second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. All right. That motion passes. Thank you, and thank you, Peraltawn Neighborhood and the applicants. Have a good weekend. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, if I could have your attention, please. Reminder that we have the second part of the public hearing for the Urban Growth Master Plan on Thursday, October 31st, one week from today at 1.30 here in the Council Chambers. We'll see you all next week. All right. We need to vote on the— I'm sorry. Yes. Please do that. Please do that, too. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the meeting and filing schedule for 2025. Got a motion. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes. It's going to pass. That's all right. I'm sorry. It's going to pass anyway. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Motion passes. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.