If you love me, baby, why don't you write me sometime? If you love me, baby, why don't you let me hear from you sometime? You don't do nothing but keep me worried. You just keep me worried all the time. You know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. It seems like you would treat me a little better, baby. Seems like you would be a little nicer and kinder. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you, baby. I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Oh, you know, you know I think about you every night about this time. Motion passes okay on the same page in the agenda item be. Bill and MJP 24-56 red mild mixed use development. Also, I'd like a one month postponement to February 13. We've got a revised layout now and this needs to go back through.  Okay. Floors open for emotion. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of plan MJP 24-56 red mild mixed use development until February 13, 2025. Thank you. We have a second by Miss Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. And then on page 3 of the agenda item C. Killing him J.D.P. 24 dash 74. Hoover Ford Phil pot evangelistic associate property lot for the fountains of Palomar amended. So we've got a another plan we filed related to the project. I need to get it run through before this one can move forward. Okay. Thank you. What date is that? March 13. March 13. Sorry. All right. Mr. Wilson. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. And then the final one. I move for postponement of PLM J.D.P. 24 dash 74. Hoover Ford Phil pot evangelistic association properties lot for the fountains of Palomar for 2 months or until March 13. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And we have a second by Miss Barksdale. Unanimously. Thank you. Okay. And then the final one is on page 6 of your agenda item H. P.L.N. M.J.D.P. 24 dash 96 Ramsey Sullivan property unit 3 lot 1. On this one there's questions related to whether we can even do the use we're proposing because of a Zoda that was written. So I need a month to consult with my client on this. And if we can't move forward, we'll withdraw it. But we would postpone that one to February 13th. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Davis. Chairman. In accord with the applicant's request, I move that we postpone P.L.N. M.J.D.P. 24 96 to our February 13th meeting. Thank you. And we have a second by Miss Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. For the commissioners, I would like to just skip over just a little bit to page 7 and get an approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit before we move forward. Okay. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit as outlined on the memo dated January 16th from Mr. Fairchild. Thank you. And we have a second by Miss Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page 6, item H, I'm sorry, item G, Plan M.J.D.P. 24-95 Newtown Springs, Lot 4, request a two-week postponement to your January 30th meeting. There's a little issue with the ordinance. We've got to clarify before we get this approved. All righty. Thank you, sir. The floor is open. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of Plan M.J.D.P. 24-95 Newtown Springs for two weeks until January 30th, 2025. Thank you. And we've got a second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. And the motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ms. Wade. Yes. Mr. Forrester, we do have a few other items from the staff perspective. We were contacted by the applicant on the Fritz Farm Track C, which is on page 4, item D. Plan M.J.D.P. 24-78, Fritz Farm Track C, and that's property located at 250 Harrison. They've asked for a withdrawal of this application. Okay. Is it an indefinite withdrawal? Yep. Okay. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, in accord with the applicant's request, I move that we indefinitely withdraw Plan M.J.D.P. 24-78. Okay. And we have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes. And then the other item appears on page 5 of our agenda. Item F, PLN M.J.D.P. 24-86 for Covey Ridge Development, Lot 4. In the midst of their request for this final development plan, they realized they needed a zone change, and so they have made that application. So to align this development plan with their zone change application, we would ask that you postpone this to the February 27th meeting. February 27th. Okay. All right. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move for a postponement of PLN M.J.D.P. 24-86, Covey Ridge Development, Lot 4, until February 27th. Okay. Thank you, sir. And we've got a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes. One more. All right. Page 7 of our agenda, item I, which is at the top, PLN M.J.D.P. 24-97, Park Hill Shopping Center, Lot 4. The applicant has indicated to the staff and we reported to the subdivision committee that they would like to postpone. So the committee did not review this plan earlier this month. They would like to postpone to the February 13th meeting. Okay. All right. Okay. The floor is open. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chair, per the applicant, I recommend a postponement of PLN M.J.D.P. 24-97, Park Hill Shopping Center, until the February 13th meeting. Okay. And we have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes. Okay. Ms. Wade. Yes. Next up, we can consider the no discussion or consent agenda item. Yes. Okay. So we do only have one case today that qualifies for the consent agenda, and that appears on page 7 of our agenda. Item J, PLN M.J.D.P. 24-98, Hoover and Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property, also known as the Fountains at Palomar, an amended final development plan for property located at 3855 Fountain Blue Lane. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to have this item heard? Okay. Seeing none, we can proceed without a full viewing of the plan. Okay. Thank you. Do you want a motion? Yeah, we need a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning Commission accept and approve the consent agenda as provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Davis. And we have a second by Ms. Boxdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. If I'm following correctly, now we will be on page 4, PLN M.J.D.P. 24-79, DeMaxwell. And this is a continuation from a previous meeting. Yes. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. You have a couple different items in front of you. So on a green sheet, you'll have some revised conditions. In between the last time that we all met, the applicant has submitted a revised plan that addresses a couple items. You also should have some blown up renderings. They show the first page of the respective renderings shows what was proposed at the time of the zone change. The second, what you all looked at as a body on the December meeting. And then the third page in each respective set is what the applicant is proposing now. The applicant has also provided a letter that outlines responses to some comments regarding the architectural changes that they've made. You also have some public comment in Granicus that relates to this item as well. So this is a continuation, so I'll briefly go over the request, the changes that we have today, and then let you all as a body kind of take a look at the items that you were really discussing, which was primarily those architectural features. So once again, subject property comprises the block on Maxwell here between Lexington and Stone. As a part of this development, they are proposing a multifamily residential development. Part of this development will involve closing right-of-way for Hagerman Court, which currently runs all the way to Maxwell. Closing that right-of-way, rerouting it to Stone Road to serve the proposed development. The green sheet in front of you has our revised conditions. They addressed some comments relating to the type of road that Hagerman would be, clarifying that it is in fact going to be public. A notation on the timing of this closures. There was one new item that staff had to address. There was a change shown, so they are requesting a waiver of this portion here with respect to road width. Once again, due to some constraints on the site, they're seeking a lesser dimension there. However, the initial waiver request had sidewalks featured on both sides. The revised plan that the applicant submitted does not provide a sidewalk on the northern side. I think that may be due to some conflicts with locating street lights or some other features. But the applicant can delve into that in more detail. It was not included as a part of the waiver request that we reviewed. And so we're asking those to be put back on and the cross section updated accordingly. So that takes the revised staff conditions. Otherwise, the loan discussion item really is the multifamily design standards conformance with what we looked at before. So in the presentation, once again, provided on the 11 by 17s in front of you, we have what was originally shown. The first set is the view from Maxwell, what was shown at the zone change, the differences between that and what was discussed and shown at the December meeting, as well as the applicant's revision. Once again, that letter from the applicant details a lot of the changes. Many are to do with the window rhythms, window sizes, materials, and some other architectural treatments. So that is in detail there. The applicant is also present to go into detail with any of these items as well. We have the alternate view, which is from Stone, so that corner there, that had those sort of walk-up units that were discussed at the time of zone change and were heavily discussed in the December meeting as well. So once again, the first rendering is what was approved with the zone change. The second was the shift and the update that was shown at the December meeting. And the last being the update that they are bringing forward to you today. Once again, those same kind of changes being made. But the applicant is present to answer any of the questions relating to those. But as far as new staff information, that's all that we have. And so anything else from staff? Okay. We do have a couple questions. Thank you, Daniel. What would you say, or Ms. Wade? What was the most substantial aspect of the changes that led to a recommendation for approval? So I believe we were previously at a recommendation of approval. We just had to discuss those items there, making sure that the planning commission was comfortable with the character being maintained with those. I see, okay. All righty. Thank you. They're the multifamily. Yes, Mr. Nickel? Yes, sir. Can you please help us understand, or I'd like you to please clarify the roles and responsibilities of the planning commissioners in evaluating the multifamily design standard? Please walk through, as I'm a fifth grader, and let us know what is in our purview and what is not in our purview. I do not want to get in the business of designing projects for developers. Yeah, yeah. So essentially what this boils down to is during the zone change process, in order to get the original zone change approved, the applicant provided renderings as well as a written justification for how the property was going to function. So these architectural renderings were shown at that time and included as a development plan note. So included in that initial note on the preliminary was that the final development plan would be in substantial conformance with the renderings that they show. So when we are looking at this, it doesn't mean that it has to be a 100% match, but really that the intent, the flow, the architectural detail, the building in the planning commission's eyes is in substantial conformance. So that it is in the spirit of what they reviewed and it is not a significant deviation from what you all had the understanding when you reviewed the project. There was discussions on how, for instance, on Stone Avenue, those entranceways would function and trying to replicate the feeling of those single family homes that are proposed to be removed. So once again, this is not a 100% match, but if you as a body feel that the intent of what was shown previously is being met or if there's still further changes that need to be made. So it has a little bit of a leeway in your all's interpretation, but that's generally the framework we look at as far as right now you're evaluating what they're showing versus what they used to get the project approved. Okay, the one phrase that is a little bit hard to pin down is substantial conformance. And I think it's important for us to understand as a body here, You go from the rendering phase to the phase of bidding out the project and get an understanding of the cost to make sure that the pro forma works the way it needs to in order to get the financing to produce the product. So substantial conformance is difficult for us to, or it is a relative to the individual that's making that decision. Whether it is or it's not in substantial conformance. But it's a slippery slope. I think that it could lead to the ability to deny or design projects by focusing on substantial conformance. And I hope that today we're not doing that any further than we already have. Thank you. I'd like to say, understand your point, and I agree with it up to a point. There's a whole step missing in this process, and particularly as it played out in the subdivision committee. The first rendering we saw used a substantial amount of brick. The detail was very different. The next time we saw it, a lot of that brick had been eliminated and the architect himself said that they had attempted to design something that would appeal to students. And was a very contemporary design. And so where we started in this substantial compliance conversation was an attempt to get back to something that was more compatible with a historic neighborhood. And not something that was designed primarily to appeal to students. And I think the developer and attorney, all the folks involved in this, worked really hard to try and help us get to that point. So, for context for this conversation. Thank you both. Any further questions? Go ahead, Mr. Mickler. Thank you, Daniel. And thank you for clarifying to what the role or the options are in terms of comparing it to what was originally presented. I had, I just, one of the things we were, we have here is a letter regarding the definition of a dwelling unit. Versus a boarding unit. And as it pertains to student housing, whether those are apartments or dwellings. And as it pertains to the zone, I don't know if you received a copy of Amy's letter. We did not. You did not? We did not. No, we only had the two items that were loaded into Granicus. In terms of public comments. I. Sent it and I got a receipt. A notice that it was received. Which, of course, you're welcome to review it. Thank you. In it, it kind of outlines some questions about. Definition and how we define. Apartments dwelling units or boarding. And. If you want to come back up later. I just am curious. I'm not. I'm curious. How the staff sees. Student housing fit into the definitions. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. And we can take a deeper dive in here, but I think that there may be some. Where the confusion may lie is these are going to be. Somewhat individually rented, but as a part of a larger dwelling unit. So the number that we're really looking at is the number of dwelling units. So these folks that are functioning together, sharing these common spaces. How many units of those? That's what's baked into the conditional zoning restrictions. Where this would be different would be something like a boarding house where you're having sort of services being provided. But this is, as far as I've seen, there's nothing that locks this in strictly into university students. Even though that may be their catering. In the future, this could be any number of. The leasing portion of that is flexible. What we have are the number of legal spaces that meet the definition of a dwelling unit. And really from how they split that up or lease that up. As long as it's meeting our long term. That are not short term rentals. Then we look at them kind of the same. But I'll be happy to take a look at this. And if there's anything else that comes on, we'd be happy to respond. All right. Thank you. Mr. Davis. I have a quick question. Just with a cursory look at the letter that the young lady here provided to us. There's a section here that talked about one of the ways that the property could be leased out. If it were, I guess, geared towards students. Is that, let's say you had multiple students in one room. Let's say you had three students in one room. If one of those students breaks his lease or her lease. The remaining two students are not responsible. Which means that the owner of the property could de facto make this a short term rental. Just go find somebody else. Put them in there. So that they meet that obligation. Have you given any thought to that? Sir? Nothing, not in particular. And once again, the fact that this is oriented towards students. Due to its proximity to campus. There is nothing to prevent them from renting it out to anyone. So while that does, there are some unique interactions. I think with any type of student housing. We look at making sure that definition of a functional family is still being met and etc. So, yeah. We're really looking at this as the dwelling unit perspective. And there may be some realities on how that student housing may actually function. But in our perspective. Those would be legal dwelling units. Reviewed, approved the same way. And if there's any compliance issues. Then we would investigate that like we would any normal home. That is exceeding the number of folks allowed to be there in those same conditions. Daniel, is essentially. I'm just trying to get at this. Basically. Does it come down to if there's fewer than five people living there. It's a dwelling unit and if it's more than five. It's a boarding. Yeah, they would not be allowed to have more than four individuals to keep meeting the definition of that family in a dwelling unit. And then, yeah, they would have to get more flexible. There is a way to have a housekeeping unit that's greater than four. But it requires a very specific review and approval. So, yeah. Anything past that. And we would have to look at a different characterization of that use. Okay. Thank you. I think that's it with the questions for now. Mr. Woodall. Good afternoon. John Woodall on behalf of the applicants. Also, I want to let the commission know that my clients are here. Mr. Michael App from Gilbane, the builder. And Mr. Seve Stavroff from excuse me. And Matt Stavroff from Stavroff Development, the owner of the property. I want to thank you all for taking the time with us once again today. And hopefully this will be it. You know, in thinking about where we are with this plan, you know, it occurs to me. I know we've got a group that says Lexington is for everyone. But it really isn't when it comes to development and building of projects like this. If you're not willing to embrace the process, the grueling and meticulous planning process that we have in this city, you're not going to do very well here. You're going to have a hard time. And you're probably just going to leave. And you're probably going to withdraw your application. And you're probably not going to come back. These gentlemen, Stavroffs, have been involved in this from the beginning. Those of you that are on the commission that won't even go back to the first gyration that was before COVID. But when this plan was first submitted, Mr. Pohl, who's here today, was still on the commission. And I got this written on my file. You know, his first impression was that this was not architecturally nuanced. And that led to a wholesale redesign of this to where we got with the approved zone change. And that showed the level of commitment that this developer and applicant had to doing this. And the other thing, I racked my brain trying to figure out where in the ordinance the substantial compliance language was. And then it hit me again when I refocused here. It's not in the ordinance, folks. It's not in our regulations. We agreed to this. This is a note on our development plan. And it says the development, Commissioner Wirth is exactly right, shall be in substantial compliance with the renderings on file with the Division of Planning. That was placed on the plan during the process. And I agree with Commissioner Nichols that it can be somewhat of a slippery slope. But this was part of this plan. And my clients agreed to abide by it. And we agreed to abide by it today. And that's why we've continued to work at this process. It was rather fortuitous after the last hearing that I hated to see him go because I think he brings so much to the commission that Commissioner Pohl, that was his last meeting. And, of course, he made his opinions known in writing about where our plan stood. And him not being on the commission anymore gave me the ability and us the ability to deal with him directly without Ms. Jones getting mad at us. And so we were able to take his comments that he made. And I'm not going to put words in his mouth. He does a great job of that. But we took his comments, and I think that's the letter you have in front of you, and we addressed each and every one of them. And that resulted in the plan, the revised rendering that you have now. And Daniel is aptly, I did this myself, but Daniel had blown this up to 11 by 17, so we went with that. If you compare the two, keeping in mind that what you see currently is computer generated versus the prior, what's on the screen now. That's watercolor generated. It's more expensive to do. It's a depiction of the same thing. It's just that the watercolor makes it look a little richer. But at the end of the day, when you compare what is before you now versus what was approved, in my estimation, the only thing you don't see are the plants on the second floor. And I apologize for that. I thought it looked great, too, when we presented it. I didn't think about the risk management aspect of it. But it doesn't make sense to put those there. That's one thing you don't see. So the one thing I know is, and I'll say it again, I really believe in our process. I really do. Because it weeds out people that aren't serious. And I think if you have a great process and you have great project participants, you're going to have a great project. You have a lack of either one, and that's where things can go sideways. Well, here we've got both. This process has worked exactly like it should. It's taken us a while to get there. One reason, one reason only. Between design and building, we had a transition in architects, an architect that didn't participate in the project, or in the zoning, to understand, and I'll even take the blame for that, not making sure that he understood how important this particular, not only the look, but the composition of the building was. Well, he gets it now, okay, because of the process. And that's what you have in front of you. And that's what these gentlemen intend to build, a project that's important that we can all be proud of. And to substantial compliance, I believe Commissioner Mickler may have asked the question in his closing comments at the zone change, of Tom Martin when he was here, I believe he was still here, how are we going to ensure that they build this project? Well, we're going to have a note on the plan that ensures that. Once again, we agreed to it, and we agreed to it today. And I think there's no question but that we've met it. On the sidewalks, we'll make that work. We may have to design a retaining wall or something like that, but that's okay. We'll do that instead of having to have a waiver on that. I think we discussed the waiver on the street width before, which is we don't need a 50-foot street right there. But as far as I will let Mr. Pohl address the dialogue back and forth between us, but I'm really proud of where we've gotten to with this project. I'll apologize for any hiccups along the way, but once again, I think it works like it's supposed to work. And once again, it isn't for everybody, and it's hard, and it's supposed to be hard. Especially with a project like this that's going to be here for so long and make such an indelible footprint on our downtown. So, with that, any questions? Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Yes, Mr. New. I got a question for you, Mr. Woodall. I appreciate your comments or commentary on how it is a difficult process bringing a project of this magnitude to our community. In your professional opinion, do you think the difficulty of this process has increased the housing crisis that we're dealing with right now by making it more difficult to produce housing units in our community? Well, let me put it this way. Do we have a housing crisis in our community? Yes. But these are situations that have to be judged on a given the certain, whatever prevailing factual circumstances. This project sits in such an area and such a place that is so prominent, it has to be right. And that's why we've, it would be easy to do like a lot of the other developers that come along here that figure out this doesn't fit the pro forma, this won't work, it's not worth it, it's too much money. It takes too much time to just back out and go somewhere else that doesn't have our processes. But this is a great place to be. These gentlemen want to be here. And I think projects like this, do they deserve a little more scrutiny than some of the average projects, maybe something that was out in a different area where we weren't going to have to remove 12 homes to do the project? Yeah, it does. It's just how I feel, you know. And like I said, the process may have taken a little longer than we would like, but that's the way it works. And I don't have, I just don't have a problem with it. How long did this process take the developer? When did we file our development plan, Matt? No, no. Well, but this development plan was actually October? Yeah. So the development plan stage, let's forget about the rezoning because that's different altogether. But the development plan stage in October and, but in all honesty, the 45 to 60 days in there, it's not this commission's fault. That's our fault, you know. It just is. I would say October to today is a pretty good, that's a very good speed for what we've been able to do. So that's good to hear. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Mickler. Well, first of all, thank you for, during the last hearing, listening and calling sort of time out and going back and working on that. It, you know, it certainly, this concept that you brought back today is better than the one that you had at the other meeting. And so given that we're hoping to build something permanent, I think the month was well worth it from the city's perspective. Thank you. Senator Toombs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Toombs. I do want to give this a little bit of time in terms of walking through a couple of the design changes from the original here just at the street level, if you would. Sure. We're on the Stone Street side, so I think you clarified last time that everything had to be pulled back, and that is still the case. Is that correct? Right. And the entrances that we put back, that's all still shown that way. There should be five. And, you know, one thing that is a little bit sort of, has a little bit of a different look, and I was curious if you could clarify that and if I missed it last time, is it seems like the first renderings have that more sort of traditional steps up a few feet from the sidewalk. And it seems like both on the front and on the Stone Street side, we've lost a couple of steps in the process. And I was curious if there had been a change in the height of the ground floor, maybe with the parking, or if another aspect had driven that. Are you referring to the, like, number of steps? Well, yeah. And, I mean, I'm referring to it just sort of the way that that sort of feels with that sort of raised pedestrian sort of promenade feeling there, and it all coming down a little bit lower is what I'm getting at. But I'm curious what drove that. I think on the initial rendering, at that time, we didn't, you know, we knew the height of the building we wanted. Everything was preliminary as far as design and the grading of it. And as we refined that more, you know, we started learning more about the steps that are needed. But at the time of the original one, we just didn't know. So we took our best guess with the information we had at the time. And, like, again, we know more now than we did then. Did the building height come down, or is that still the? No, the building is still, you know, like 75 feet. That's not changing. It's just when we started, like, to be honest, what's driving it is Hagerman Court. We have to match the elevations there. And as we got more into really looking at how that affects the surrounding properties, the elevations on Hagerman Court where we had doors coming out, it's just evolved, and this is what it is now. And what was the, what's, and then the, I guess that height just, that effect wraps around on Maxwell. In terms of where we've got the townhouses replaced, you talked about on the Stone Street side that the sort of seven townhomes went to five apartments. Is that still the structural concept in this revised plan? And those would still have entrances into their units off of Stone. So they would be able to enter directly off of Stone. Yeah, and then 10 is, like, there was discussion before about, are these a metal locked door? No, these are primary entrances into those units that will be used every day. So, you know, they're going to look like a door on the front of a house and will be used as such as well. And then I know you touched on this as adding back the sidewalk in on Hagerman. What was the implication or what was the hesitancy initially of putting that on there? Or what does that mean in terms of space? Do you do that with Hagerman still being that width, or does it have to get narrower? Or does it, because there's another property there on the corner, right? Yes. Currently there is no sidewalks on Hagerman. There's a two-foot concrete strip. It would be a stretch to call that a sidewalk. That's where they keep all of their Herbie Kirby's all up and down. You know, we had a finite distance to work with between the building and the property line and the house on the corner of Hagerman that you're talking about. To get two sidewalks in there, it left us no room for grading at all. So to do the second sidewalk, it's forcing us to put a retaining wall in to make it work. But we kind of feel like that sidewalk really serves no purpose. The sidewalk that's on the apartment side will be used. It could be used by all the residents of Hagerman Court as well as all the people in this apartment. So we kind of felt like one sidewalk was meeting the needs for what's there. Two sidewalks was, you know, it's great to have sidewalks, but a sidewalk to nowhere, is it really necessary? And that's how we felt that was. And then the final one just has to do with the handling of that sort of top story there. In this revision, you all have gone back to making those windows taller, I think. You all noted to kind of define that top story. You want to address that? No. Yes. And I. And. You're looking at the. There we go. There we go. Right. So in the current one, if you go back to the original real quick. The original had that top story highly pronounced. The next one didn't have it pronounced at all. And then we've gone back to something in between. And I. I think what you're saying it on our the previous version, I guess you call it the cornices on top. We're all one color. Yet. Yet each section of the building was a different color, but the cornices were all the same. So this new rendering carries that color. For most of it carries that. I was just going to ask one sort of specific thing. And this was. This was a small comment. That was. That was made by. Graham in the in the original. It also had sort of a sill that define that top story. Around there. And in the new one. The sales all match. And I was wondering if you could. If. If. You could carry that cell. Of the windows through to the new plan. Yeah, I'm not good with this thing. Commissioner. Thank you for your question. The windows on the top floor are full height windows for the ceiling. The sill is represented by the. It's the top one. Is represented by this. Band, if you will. And you have this. This piece right here. It's very similar to the original rendering. We have that same exact condition. As the original rendering. Same thing at the top. With the. With the parapet. It's it's really. It's. It's. Appears to be very similar to the original. Rendering. Floor to ceiling. There's really no sill inside. It's a window that just from the floor. To the ceiling of the unit. Exterior wisers. I guess. Some articulation there, but. There is no. Yeah. I'm interested on it. I'm talking about sort of that exterior. And I'm really just talking about that feel from the neighborhood. Of giving that, that differentiation. And this is, this is a small detail. And I am glad to see that the. The windows. Are taller. I think. I think carrying. I think. To sort of that small detail from Graham's point to carrying that Sort of help bring that. Feeling across. The way that you've. You've got the height of the windows. And just sort of defining it with that line. Another question. On those top story windows. In the initial rendering. They certainly looked to be taller than the other. Floors directly below the windows themselves. But then. In the second. And third renderings. They do seem to still match. The size or are they truly a taller. Great question. Commissioner. So the, the original. Rendering. Had three. Really different types of windows. So. You had the full height windows at the top. These windows on the lower floors are a little bit smaller. Not as tall as the top story. But they're still very similar in nature. On how they look. They're just not as tall. In the brick areas. There's four individual windows. Here. And then as you go. Into this next section. They're kind of square windows, if you will. You know, not, not one individual. But you kind of put two together. Here. And, and in our new. In our. One that we presented last month to you. As commissioner Paul at the time said. The, these were all kind of the same. There wasn't a difference in height and we missed that. And then the windows here and all the way across. There weren't four individual windows in the brick section. These were fine in this area. but it didn't match the original rendering so we went back and if you look at our new rendering so the top story big windows not as tall here but still the same style the same asymmetrical mullion pattern here that was provided in the original this section has the box windows the two that are together if you will and then the brick centers all have four individual windows and that's the the very similar look that the original had and Commissioner Paul pulled that really saw that we missed it and we think it's definitely a better building with the way it looked before and the way it currently looks now very similar thank you it's just on the rendering it did provide that sense of a cap that was very I thought appropriate and I just wanted to make sure on the record that in the latest renderings the top floor windows particularly on the corner are are truly taller than the other ones even though we can't that's correct it perfectly the angles of the two renderings are slightly different so kind of this one sets back a little bit more as opposed to the original rendering so that's gives you a different slightly different perspective sure thank you well thank you African this is I don't think we have any more questions for you at the moment mr. Woodell okay I would simply say you know like I said we've been a vigorous participant in the process and to get to substantial compliance and I think we're there and passed it thank you all for your consideration and and working with us as a team member thank you thank you citizen comments time so I know miss Clark you had some things you wanted to ask but what we would like to do miss Clark with your piece if you have any questions for the applicant can you just basically ask us and then the applicant would step up and and when his rebuttal time no we we not in court so we don't want to do the cross-examination and I'm not a judge so I don't want to do that I don't think it'd be fair for you or him so so miss Clark you're up first oh you want do you want to be first I'm Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road what we learned in the final development plan was that you the units and bedrooms within it didn't necessarily correspond to the to the front that you were given to meet the multifamily design standards and some changes were made I did want to ask the applicant whether or not it's unclear today independent access to specific units the townhouse doors is carried through in the end or not because in between they said it would be to the whole building they wouldn't be specifically for the townhouses alone so we had sort of a Potemkin village a fake front on the earlier one and now they expressed last time they'd done enough designing that they could say where the windows needed to be and what sizes and so forth and that made adjustments my question is not about the facade and and those details as such but rather it's more like what mr. nickel referred to as the pro forma you scope it out you do your financing and your form and function is closely connected with the kind of money you need to put down to make it happen and so the form and function changes as it goes along the form and function is important at the development plan stage because bottom line really the development plan has to represent a use of the land that is allowed to the zone and the use that is allowed is it's on about here on your letter all the principal permitted uses in the b1 zone and eight I'm selecting the ones that are pertinent any type of dwelling unit so the question becomes what is a dwelling unit and as far as pro forma and financing goes student housing operations have national conventions and design colloquia and so on and they have certain characteristics a student student housing use regularly doesn't consist of dwelling units for a family or household as our ordinance defines them but it makes leases to individuals leasing to the individual generally with separate room keys so you have a key lock on your own bedroom door if one roommate breaks the lease the others bear no liability for the costs generally the management offers what's called roommate matching which means if you have a preformed group that's great but if you don't you toss your name in and it's like when I went to college some dorm mother or something decided well these two people would get together they would fit pretty well so the management in the student housing things generally offers what's termed roommate matching to facilitate grouping students of varying number together for maximum occupancy in units and where there's a vacancy they can fill it as it arises within the unit a group of separate individuals use common kitchen facilities but don't necessarily share meal and food costs and you heard them say well they'll be ride sharing and so on. A lot of that is dropping off meals for students. Bathrooms may be shared or may be individually assigned and I don't know how that is for this because I didn't have an opportunity to ask. If you have a private bedroom do you also have a private bath and that's your part and your rent is that and shared facilities. Within the unit people don't, yeah. The real estate investment product is thus a singularly inflexible type of housing targeted to a single market offering a high return. And you've heard this in other hearings. You don't really do adaptive reuse on a student housing project. And it usually doesn't have other people that come in because it's only something that students are happy to be a part of with other students. So what we have I think the essence of it would be that a boarding or lodging house as defined in our ordinance means a residential building or part thereof for five or more adults living together. And here we have one, I think it was for 656 beds. Not as a family or housekeeping unit. Ms. Clark. And if I may address what was a question to the staff. And it gives four criteria for what might induce you to define it that way. Meals and food costs are typically not shared and I don't think they're generally shared in the student things. They could be. Rent is established by leases to individuals or charges assessed to individuals. Sometimes mailboxes, I don't know that anyone ever cares anymore, meters and connections. The distinction with a dwelling unit is that it's one or more rooms connected together, constituting a separate independent housekeeping establishment. It's occupied by a family or up to four unrelated persons and there are a bunch of other arcane options that do come into play. Well, in general, where there's a conflict in the ordinance, the more restrictive controls. I would characterize this as a boarding house, a lodging house. Because it meets that criterion that it leases to individuals. It makes it a unique housing type. And I don't think it's allowed to this zone. And I encourage you not to approve a development that's represented on a plan where it has leases to individuals and many other characteristics of partly shared, partly individual living. Living facilities are not wholly shared. So I think it's important and it's important because it impacts all of Lexington. Two other categories that could come into play but don't. One is a dormitory. But it has to be associated with a school, organized by a school. The other is a fraternity. Ms. Clark. Yes. And it's neither. I know. All right. No, no. You're welcome. Okay. Mr. Poll, you want to speak? Your name are on the list here. Yeah. Make sure you state your name. I am Graham Poll. I live at 977 Finn Council Road and it's good to see you all. You look great. Back here they look a lot better though. Yeah, they look better, yeah, yeah. As Mr. Woodall said, we had an exchange after I wrote the three-page critique, which I hope all of you received a copy of. I sent it to everyone. My response, or their response to my critique was, as you see, a reply with individual items noted in red, how they responded to each of my criticisms. My feeling is that they've really worked hard to listen to what is being said and to develop a project that substantially meets the intent that was expressed in their application for the zoning change. So, in a nutshell, as I feel pretty good about where we are, I would like to address this issue of the top floor for a moment. At the risk of angering Bruce, because I'm playing architect here. There is a difference between what we're seeing here and what the previous two renditions had. And both of those had the top floor that is set back behind the townhouses clad in a white material so that there was a consistent band around the top. And there was a substantial difference between the articulation of the windows in the top floor in the original zoning application. And so, if I had my druthers, I'd see that white or that lighter material articulated the way they showed it in the two previous versions. So that those townhouse volumes, as we're calling them, really stand out at the top and are not confused with the little elements that are set behind them. And the other thing that I think could really help is to eliminate the bottom horizontal mullion from those windows so that they are distinctly different from the windows below, but that's a minor detail. So, it's just the idea that what I was trying to get at is that the part of the success of that initial application was that there was a clear articulation of a top on the building. And that top wrapped the building and appeared to sort of disappear behind the townhouse volumes. But it was a top. It was a finish to the vertical rise of the building. And I think that I still think there's room for improvement there. But that's a detail, right, Mr. Nickel? Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Poe. You did a good job. Yes. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? My name is Maureen Peters, and I occupy 276 Lexington Avenue, directly adjacent to the property. I've also had a chance to talk with Graham since the hearing in December. And I think my only comment, I had some written comments, but I'm just going to say what I feel. I feel like we got off to a good start. I appreciated the original rendering. I feel like we took a terrible detour in the middle. And now I do feel like this is much improved and we're back on track. But my concern going forward is what is the process and what are the guardrails to keep us on the right path? And is it just up to citizens to try to come to every meeting to make sure that they're staying on track? So I guess I would like to just reiterate, I think we're back on a better track, and I hope we can stay there. Thank you. All right, good afternoon Planning Commission members. My name is Zach Leonard. I'm the Historic Preservation Manager at the Blue Grass Trust. And I hope you all received the document that I emailed to the planning staff that contains my recent op-ed and the Herald-Leader. While this updated rendering has improved some features of the building, we still have some concerns about the design and about the procedure for this approval more generally. Firstly, the promised step backs in the front porch field that were used to justify the zone change are still missing due to the placement of the utility easement along Stone Avenue. And as a result, the building remains what one might call a hulking mass out of scale with its historic neighbors, and arguably in violation of the comp plans. So I would very much like to know why planning staff back in 2023 approved a preliminary development plan without considering utility locations. Because from the get-go, the developer had insisted on the removal of Lower Hagerman Court, which is lined with utility poles that were obviously serving some purpose. And moreover, Article 21, Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, stipulates that preliminary development plans should include proposed and existing easements for utilities. So I would just like to know how the ball got dropped there. Next, I want to move on to a design concern. While presenting recent iterations of this plan, the builder's representative claimed that the floor to ceiling windows on the corner sections that were present in the original renderings would be impossible to include due to the placement of bedrooms and bathrooms. And these larger windows have returned in the latest draft, which is a positive step. But this still begs the question, at this late stage, are any of these renderings actually reflective of real floor plans? Because if they are not, then these images are just a fantasy. So perhaps the builder could clear that up for us. And to conclude, I would like to look to the future as House Bill 443 has now mandated that development plans must adhere to objective standards that are applied ministerially. This would be a perfect opportunity to actualize stipulations put forth in the most recent comprehensive plan. This could include adhering to density policy number two, which suggests that it is to quote, wholly possible to add residential units while matching the consistent rhythm of existing development so that the new blends respectfully with the old. Development should minimize significant contrasts in scale, massing, and design, particularly along the edges of historic areas and neighborhoods. And I could continue to quote from the comp plan, but I think that point is made. So as procedures change, the Blue Grass Trust would be happy to offer any assistance or support to ensure that new construction in historic areas complements our unique and irreplaceable built environment. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go, I have a question. Are any of the commissioners in receipt of Dr. Leonard's comment, written comment? I don't, okay. Hold on, Ms. Wade, you wanted to say, you've got anything to say? We also don't have it. Okay. A mail? We'll check. We have staff that are sick, so obviously Bill's here in replacement of Paula, but I don't, I didn't see it. So I apologize that it wasn't provided. All right, thank you. I was going to say I have something to go ahead and share. No, no, no, no. Dr. Leonard, do you have a hard copy that you would want us to pass around? I do. Okay, all right, okay. Thank you. Okay, all right, now Mr. Woodoff, you got anything you want to add, rebuttal? No sir, all right, thank you, sir. Citizens, do you have anything additional you wanted to add? I wouldn't think so, maybe, I knew you was going to get up, Ms. Clark. I'm reading from the bylaws of the Planning Commission as adopted in 4-12-2012 and it speaks of meetings generally. There's a 7-6 addresses consent agenda items, subdivision items excluding preliminary development plans, zoning development plans, may be placed on the consent agenda if no person present at the meeting objects to the commission acting on the matter without discussion. So then we go to when hearings may be held 8-1 prior to adoption of the comp plan, any of its elements, prior to making a recommendation concerning the amendment of the text or the map of the zoning ordinance. Those are all zoning matters. In addition to those required by laws, the commission may hold public hearings whenever it decides such hearings will be in the public interest. Notice requirements, okay. Hearings for zone map amendments, text amendments, and contested subdivision plans and development plans, time limitations. Public hearings and meetings for the, this is 8-6. Public hearings and meetings for the purpose of consideration of amendments to the text or the map of the zoning ordinance and contested subdivision plans and development plans shall afford all interested parties the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses and full rebuttal. And then it goes on. So that there's no confusion that we think we're in a legal hearing before a court of law. This is a commission hearing. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I'll leave that up to legal. Do you want to add something? Well, your bylaws are your all's bylaws. And you all have regularly scheduled these types of approvals for subdivisions, plats, this particular meeting, not as a public hearing, but as a hearing to vote on those publicly as a body. And it's your purview as the chair how you want to run those. So, that's your call. All right, well, I made the call. We're moving on. Yeah, for the staff, I just want to clarify that from our perspective, we haven't heard anything from the applicant or any aspect of the application that would violate or lead us to believe that these, this is not a collection of individual dwelling units for independent household units. Maybe not a family as defined typically, but that they are household units in individual dwelling units and not a boarding or lodging house. And that's based on the application that we've received. There's nothing on there that insinuates that five or six or more people are living together in one dwelling unit. And then I just want to, again, apologize that if we didn't provide the public comment that we received this week. Okay, thank you. That was my request, clarification of whether this fits within the zone or not. Okay, all right. Staff, you have anything else? Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission. No, he's fine. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens? Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of things, I do have a couple of questions for the applicant. But a lot of what we've heard today and so forth from, I guess I'd say longevity of being here, being a senior member, longevity wise only. This is a process that we've always done in the fact that we allow, we won't, we invite questions and concerns from citizen members. But those questions and concerns are addressed to the commission and we'll attempt to get answers at that point in time. This is something that's been going on for as long as I've been here, and that's quite a while. A couple of questions for Mr. Woodall or his contingent. I do appreciate the back and forth that you all had with the former commission member. I think it was good. I think the answers that were obtained in that, things would have maybe gone better if we'd had those answers a month ago. But a couple of things, he did mention the top floor above townhouses not being set back. Is there a reason for that? Not really. Not really answer is okay. Yeah. Maybe I just don't see it, that there's. That's, I mean, that's the, that's what was approved. Yeah. Versus. There's a step back for sure. I saw more on the right hand side of the original. There's a step back for sure. Go back. There's definitely a step back on the right. Right here. There's a step back for sure that brings this as a prominent corner. And the corner kind of ends going down Maxwell here. So it definitely provides a corner element to the project. And with the floor to ceiling windows, really differentiates the top floor from the other floors. But it does step back, if you will, from the other components of the building. So the other question was, and it's something that I do remember. One of the citizens here brought it up today. A month ago, you indicated that, you know, some of the layouts for the windows changed because of the floor plan inside. Maybe being in the middle of the bathroom or something. But yet, some of those windows seem to revert back to the original plan. I'm presuming that they're not going to be in the middle of the bathroom now. The windows, we did revise the look of the windows. They still fall within the living rooms and bedrooms the way they need to fall. Separating the, you know, the windows from the two individual box windows to four individual. Still fell in the same location. What did change our interior of the building, is the Hagerman court to the left? Or not the Hagerman knee? Yeah, so this one here, we added another layer of articulation here that we didn't have before. These particular units, because we stepped the building here, we actually had to revise those units interior to the building to create this step back. But it still created a nice unit. So we were happy to be able to make this change to make it more look like the original. And Commissioner Owens, this is in the construction plan phase now. And the plans are being drawn from this set of renderings. Yeah, that's a really good point. We are designing for these renderings here should they get approved today. Well, and I appreciate that comment because this is what we have to go back and, you know, going back to the original zone change. You know, substantial compliance, you know, that's about all we have to go with. And, you know, we'd like to see what you all say you're going to build. One other question, and I think it's pretty obvious, you know, this has been categorized as student housing. And I think it's primarily because of the location of it. But I would venture to say that if I wanted to go down there and rent a or lease a apartment or something, I would be able to do that. Yes, sir. Being a non-student. Yes, sir. Thank you. It's unlikely, but yes. It'd be unlikely that I'd want to be down there, but. Yes, by fair housing, we're allowed to rent to anybody, but we do target students. Okay, do we have any additional questions? Yes, Mr. McClear. Well, you know, in terms of the discussion of whether this, you know, substantially meets the renderings in the preliminary plan. I think you addressing many of these issues and working on it and coming back meets that definition for me. I want to know on some of these little things. And this may be more of a question for staff. But if we approved this, and we've already agreed to add the sidewalk back in. But if we approve this, would we be able to approve it with the, you know, option of, for example, removing those horizontal mullions and defining the top story as they go forward without them having to come back and get further approval. Or they could proceed with it as is. I mean, this isn't a substantial change to the architecture. This is just sort of regards to one of those comments. What, is that a, Daniel, are you taking that? Or Tracy, are you taking that? I'm not sure I fully understand. But if you all find that what they have presented to you today with the revisions is in substantial compliance based on that note that was originally put on the plan as part of the zone change. Then I think that the staff is going to look at that. All divisions of the government, when I say staff that are going to deal with this going forward as a final development plan, are going to look at what you find today and look at whatever they get or receive when permits are being requested and otherwise that it is in substantial compliance with this plan dated today. So, I mean, whether or not, I mean, I, you know, I can't speak for every single division in the government, but I think if what they come in with looks substantially like this, they're going to get their permit. You know, if they go back, if they went back, which I don't think they're going to do based on what we've been through at this point and change something dramatically such that a division or department got a permit request and we're like, that doesn't look like what the planning commission approved on the 16th of January. Then it would call this whole process back into play if that helps. I think the construction plans are going to have to match what's approved and then building will cross-reference that with the development plan. Like, for example, if Mr. Penn would remember and Commissioner Owens, you may too, and I think Commissioner Wilson wouldn't know. We went through a similar long development plan process on what's going to be the 7-11 or Speedway over on Bursales Road back during COVID. And it's now gotten around to construction. Well, you know, there's a comparison between what was approved and because there was a lot of extra stuff, you know, the horse rails, art, and so forth. And it's the construction plans are cross-referenced against the development plan to make sure that the developer does what they said they'd do. I think there may be, I think the question may be sort of, we have a rendering submitted today. I think Commissioner Mickler is suggesting some alterations to that that would not necessarily come back to here. So the mechanism for that, to incorporating this plan so that building inspection, etc., had the changes reflected by the commission. I think that's what he, what specific? So, like, the specific example that Graham indicated was those horizontal. And I can't remember if they're the muttons or the mullions, okay, on the top, but they're the horizontal ones. On stone, right? On the top story. Okay, all the way around. Just to get, because I think he's, I'm going to put words in his mouth and I hope he comes up if I'm wrong. But if those give that vertical look, that helps that top story look taller, as opposed to cutting it on the horizontal. As an example, that does not necessarily mean that we would vote if you chose to do those, that that does not substantially comply with the things. But I don't want to make it where. Does that make sense? It does, I'm just, I'm looking at the two drawings and trying to. I don't necessarily want to make you decide if they go in or come out at this hearing. So I was just wondering if we, my question was, can we say it substantially complies? And if you all choose to remove those, as was suggested in the hearing, you may do so without. Okay. Without. We'll consider, we could consider doing that, and then we don't have to come back. Yeah, Commissioner, we would absolutely consider it. I just need, maybe Mr. Powell can show us what he really means so we can. I can give it to my architects, and they can do it. I really don't understand without seeing, and you're trying to. And I don't want you to, I don't want to necessarily make you answer that question right now, but I just wanted to. I just wanted to see if we could pass it in a way that gave them that option. Does that make sense? So just clarification, I think in the past, as a commission, we have encouraged certain things. We didn't put them in the form of a motion, and they didn't come back into a formal check process. Is that what we're talking about here? I think there's a precedent for that. That's fine. We'll. That's fine. We've come this far. We're happy to just have a discussion with Graham. Okay, thank you. All right, okay. My comment on that is I think that we're getting into designing the project for the developer when we're trying to determine what mullions are on the windows. I think this is way out of line, and it should be approved with the 16 conditions, removing condition 16, which is discuss multifamily design standards, rendering, and elevation changes. Because I think we've done so. All right, thank you, sir. Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Woodall and applicant for being so diligent and working with Mr. Pohl. And thank you to Mr. Pohl for seeing things that I didn't necessarily see, but I think we're on a much better path. Hearing Graham say that he believes the latest rendering is in substantial compliance carries a lot of weight with me. And I don't mind relying on substantial compliance, because when an initial application is presented to us and we're given renderings, then it's only fair that if what we were told in whatever month that was is maintained and carried through the entire process, which I think the applicants have wanted to do. But I think substantial compliance was actually their ally in this process. Thank you. All right, we're going to close this portion out and just bring it back to the commission for a motion or something. Unless Mr. Wilson, you got something you just can't- Just a quick clarification on number 16, it says discuss. Should that be resolved or deleted? We can change it to resolve. I think they have a note on the development plan currently, which is note ten, that says the development shall be in substantial compliance with the renderings on file with the division of planning. And so if that, although a bit generic, meets the intent, I think what we will do is what, you know, Tracy Jones mentioned from the law department, we will check those renderings before we sign off on a development, our building permit for the development based on that note. So the note exists already. 16 should be resolved. I think you can delete it. Delete it, okay. Which was what Mr. Nickel mentioned. Okay, that's the question I had. It's on the, I think I revised, yes. I think we'll end up with 14 conditions. I think we had a numbering issue there. The last one being depicting the sidewalk on both sides of Hagerman. So 15 and 16 would be deleted? Recommended for deletion. We had a misnumbering. So the last one is 13 where you're provided the planning commission grants the waiver. So we'll need a waiver motion. 14, yes. And then number 15 is really 14. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Wilson, you want to carry it on? Before I make the motion, I would say that I appreciate the discussion we've had here related to process. Although process doesn't always bring about an agreement, but it does bring about better understanding. And through the discussions we had here, since my background is not in architecture, I have had a greater understanding about what is being attempted here and what's what. Let me also, too, publicly say that the, as applicants, you all have worked as hard as I've seen any group work to try to comply and to come into compliance with what the suggestions have been provided to you. So at this time, I would like to make a motion to approve PLN MJDP 24-79 Maxwell-Lindhurst Subdivision. Maxwell Street, 245-251 Stone Avenue with the 14 conditions provided by staff. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Chair, I'll second the motion. I do have a question. Yep. Mr. Wilson brought it up, or I guess when the renumbering of these came in. Number 13 speaks to granting a requested waiver. I think since they're putting a sidewalk back in, is that needed or does that need to be changed? Yes, sir. They still need the waiver, and that's the report that hopefully is in Granicus from last time. There's a report from December detailing the waiver request, and it's about the width of the street, because we moved the utility easement out and put the utilities on their property. So the width of the street is what they asked for in the waiver, from I think 52 to 34. Well, my question, usually when we have language that speaks to granting a requested waiver, we have to act on that waiver. Yes, we'll have to have a separate motion for the waiver. Okay, thank you. And if we need a refresher on that, Daniel or I can do that. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So Mr. Owen seconded the motion. Any further discussion to that motion? Mr. Bickley. Well, I agree with the motion and I intend to support it, but I guess I have a question for the Commissioner Wilson or for the staff. And that doesn't have to do with any more restrictions on them. That just has to do if they were to go back after the comments they received on the top story and decide that the minor changes that Mr. Pohl suggested would benefit the project. Would they be allowed to do so? To that end, I would keep my motion as is, but I could modify it to simply suggest that the motion is made with flexibility. Which would allow them to do the kinds of things that you've suggested. Ms. Lee. I'd rather it be very specific and allow no flexibility. Okay. I'd rather you all make a precise decision and we'll move forward with that. I understand where Mr. Mickel is coming from as well. And I think that there's a lot of things connected with a lot of things. And one of the big issues for getting things done is trust. And the only thing I know about as it relates to trust is what people do. It's not so much what they say, and of course what is written down helps to reinforce that. So I agree with the specifics of it. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I trust our applicants because they've done so well so far. And make that just as a part of a recommendation of consideration for the two things that you've indicated. If that's any case, you know. And we can vote on it. We're not going to go back and forth on it. Yeah. We just need to vote on what we have because if not, we're going to go back and forth. Right. And we don't have all night to be going back and forth. Thank you. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Do we got any further discussion? If not, vote via Granicus. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Owens, mention the waiver. Yeah. I was just in discussion with legal and Mr. Duncan. We usually have a waiver request to act on. Unfortunately, we don't today. Tracy, can you help us with that? Well, sure. I can give you my copy. But their request, which Mr. Crum presented in December and was part of the discussion, was to reduce the street right of way for, and if we want to show the development plan again, can you do that? So Hagerman, again, currently comes straight out to Maxwell. And the new street, which has to follow the subdivision regulations, is going to go over to Stone. So the width requirement for a local street is 52 feet. They mentioned 54 here in order to fit the sidewalks in. But they don't have room to accommodate that. And so they've asked for a waiver to reduce the width to 34 feet. And instead of our normal cross section, which is a sidewalk and then a utility strip or planting strip, then the pavement with the curbs that on the other side are utility and planting strip again and a sidewalk. So they're taking the utility strip out of that and moving it to the adjacent properties. So in one case, it already exists on the Stone Road property. Their utilities are already there. On the case of their frontage, that will back up to the new Hagerman court. It will just be on their property. The utility boxes and so forth and underground will just be on their parcel. So all of the function will still be there. That is typically part of a local public street, but we're reducing the width to 34 feet. The staff recommended three conditions associated with that. The first, that it be denoted on the final development plan, which is typical, so that we can follow that decision. Second, the design of the sidewalk along Hagerman Court shall utilize a monolithic or integrated curbing to ensure that there's a minimum of five feet of sidewalk width. Basically, when the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb, we just want to make sure there's actually five feet of flat space there. And then third, the construction of the proposed Hagerman Court realignment shall occur prior to the proposed closure of the existing Hagerman Court. Just a timing situation. And they've noted that timing on the revised development plan already. So the staff did recommend approval of the requested waiver. Okay, Mr. Chairman, that was a lot of information that you just passed out there, what have you. But in the order of trust, I think that I would move that we approve the waiver presentation as presented by staff with the conditions also. Okay, do we have a second by Ms. Wirth? Thank you. Any discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you for all the work you've done. Thank you, everybody. Well, they should have had it. Yep, Graham, good to see you. So next, we're on the public facility review. And this is for Henry Clay High School. All right, good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The next item on our agenda here is a public facility review for the reconstruction of the Henry Clay High School. So this is the property located at 2100 Fontaine Road. It is the current site of- Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. Can we exit? Sorry, Mr. Crum. You're good. That was fun, took a long time, but nothing. So this is a request for the existing Henry Clay High School site, which is located at 2100 Fontaine Road. This is going to be demolishing the existing school, reconfiguring more or less the entire site, and constructing a new 350,000 square foot high school. So here is the location of Henry Clay High School. Here we have Lake Shore coming in here, and then Fontaine Road curving around where it connects with Richmond Road. We have the existing high school building located here with its two access points to the roadways. Athletic facilities are generally located to the rear of the site, along with multiple parking areas. Fayette County Public Schools intention to demolish the existing building and then reconstruct a new school on the opposite side of the site, reconfiguring the athletic facilities and providing new updated parking areas. From a zoning perspective, we've got residential around much of the property. We do have this AU zoning here, which is for the reservoir property, but otherwise a mix of single family and multi-family residential. With respect to the property itself, this is the view from Fontaine. Once again, looking into the property, school located in the back. And then you have parking areas, a drive circulation that goes in front of the school to some other parking. And then the opposite view, this is from the other associated roadway, where you see the rear of the property with the athletic facilities, the back side of the school, along with the parking areas associated therein. This is the revised plan. So this is an increase in the size of the school to approximately 350,000 square feet. It has been relocated where currently it sits about here. It will now be on the left portion of the screen. To do that, it requires relocating several of the athletic facilities. Notably, the baseball fields, the softball fields, and some of the associated parking. They are going to maintain the existing football field and its configuration, along with the existing tennis courts. We are proposing also a updated concession stand here, but really much of the changes in the site are really the increase in the size of the school. And then changes in circulation, so it will have parking and generally visitor access is provided here. Student drop off and a student parking area located to the center. Bus access, it will actually loop around the property to the rear where they have bus parking, as well as the parking areas that also double as the marching bands practice. So trying to locate that parking internally where possible. They have noted that they are going to be using permeable pavers for several of the parking lots. But generally speaking, the school will be generally flipped from its current location. As we look at this, we make a recommendation based on its compliance with the comprehensive plan. Like most school sites, we look at it from an enhanced neighborhood perspective, low density, non-residential. Once again, looking at providing these neighborhood services, these community facilities, and making sure that they're in an appropriate scale. So this increase in the size of the building will help Henry Clay High School better serve the population that it is attempting to serve. So once again, several goals and objectives, talking about the scale and well-designed nature of these facilities, making sure that it's meeting the needs of the population. And where also applicable in applying environmental equity policies, where possible to try to alleviate some of the impact of the scale and scope of some of these facilities. Once again, we found it was in agreement with several policies of the comprehensive plan, increasing the size of the community facilities to make sure that you are addressing the population adequately. And then reinvesting in these neighborhoods to positively impact them. Once again, the location is where an existing high school is. So from a location perspective, it's a continuity there. It's located on the sufficiently sized streets. They're looking for ways to mitigate those impervious surfaces using permeable pavers. And then making sure that there's not really a contrast in scale. This sort of sits alone based on where it's at. So really there's not a terrible increase in scale, just the size of the facility to accommodate the proposed number of students. So we found that it will serve the needs of the community, and then really address an issue of capacity that has been going on there. And that the goals, objectives, and comprehensive plans support it. We do have one recommendation, and it does pop up on occasion with several of our facilities. And it's just incorporating additional landscaping where it makes sense into those parking lots and areas. Several of those parking lots, for instance, the band practice area, that really needs to be exempted. Otherwise, you can't practice if there's parking lot islands in the middle of it. But where it makes sense, incorporating the landscaping to make sure that we're sort of meeting those standards and providing that sort of tree canopy and other benefits associated with that. But otherwise, recommending that you all find that this is an agreement with the comprehensive plan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions of staff. And we have some folks from Carmen here that can speak to the actual design of the project as well. Any questions of staff? I can't recall, but have we had a single public facility review parking lot meet the ordinance? It's a good question. I think it also speaks to a certain extent of the level of specificity that they're showing. Some of these can be a little more conceptual versus, like for instance, on New Circle Road for the division of water quality. They were still going to flesh out some of those details in a little bit finer later on. And so they said they would incorporate some of those measures, so. I mean, even Parks and Rec wasn't putting the trees they were supposed to put in there. And they agreed to. And they agreed to. They agreed to. How many trees, and this doesn't have to be exact. These rows are 25 car lengths long in that middle parking lot, for example. How many trees would normally need to be in a row that long, sort of to get that sort of canopy to mitigate the urban heat island effect that we're trying to mitigate with that tree canopy requirement? Well, normally you would see a spacing of a interior island or something, basically every ten or so spaces. So the plantings within that, so based on the number of rows. But nothing's being shown here at this time. So in a normal development plan, that sort of middle one would have to have, in a couple of places down that row, you'd need to have a tree planted so that the canopy would shade the parking lot eventually. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. When are they going to start? Don't know. Chris, do you know? I do. Yeah, that's the big question. Chris Howard with Harman. The plan, I believe, is to start as soon as school is out this summer. This summer, and then during, I guess you're going to be, of course, construction during the school year. So it's going to be in phases like Tates Creek High School did theirs? It's very similar to Tates Creek. The building will be fully constructed prior to the demolition of the existing high school. Therefore, kids will be in that school before the existing school is demolished. That's it, thank you, thank you. So the athletic fields, obviously, would be phased in after that demolition. Because you're here in front of us, I'm going to take advantage of this opportunity. And note that the Denver Public Schools now have put aluminum covers over their parking lots with solar panels on the top. And they're generating solar energy to help students whose families can't pay their utility bills. Pay their utility bills off at the parking lot. I'm just saying. Point taken. All right, so we got to take a motion on this one, so floor is open for a motion. Sorry, Amy, I didn't even see, my bad. Amy, you public comment, thank you. I'm glad to hear Tates Creek High School mentioned and as I recall, it was a situation with the phasing. And so you had to build the school where the school wasn't. In doing so, they eliminated a lot of tree canopy and they came very close to the neighbors. So my question would be, and the grade was different, and it was sort of hovering over the neighbors. My question would be, what would be the impact of changing the site of the school on the larger site for neighboring residences, if any? And for any possible removal of tree canopy that would be involved, thank you. So what's not obvious in the site plan is that to the west of the school is a public park. So there's no houses immediately adjacent to the west. And then to the south is the water company. So again, they don't, where the football field and so forth and the rear parking lot are. So there's not a tremendous impact on people living there. And then the school will be moving slightly closer to Fontaine than it is currently. So there are single family homes across, or not Fontaine, along Lake Shore. Along Lake Shore, so it'll be slightly closer to them. But it would be moving away from the apartments that are on Fontaine. So certainly they're going to lose some trees, but Chris, I don't know. There's not a ton of trees there anyway. And I'd love to hear what involvement the neighbors have had in this. So yes, the majority of tree removal is on that public park side. Everything on the rear of the site, dealing with steep slopes. So we're kind of staying off those steep slopes as best we can. But the majority of changes and tree canopy changes are on that park side. Thank you, sir. Okay, I'll bring it back to Ms. Worth. Yes, Ms. Worth. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move that the planning commission finds that the plan for the new Henry Clay High School complies with the comprehensive plan goals and objectives, sorry, not objections. And we further support the recommendation of staff for the addition of the additional landscaping. Thank you. We have a second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously, thank you. All righty, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, it's good to see you all again. You will note that we are off our ordinary schedule of meetings. Today should have been a planning commission work session by our ordinary schedule. But we will pick that up next Thursday, January 23rd at 1.30 in the Phoenix building, third floor, where we will have our planning commission work session. And just to complete the thread, you will have your monthly zoning hearing on the 5th Thursday on January 30th back in this room at 1.30. Thank you. Can you give us a preview of coming attractions about what we're going to be doing in the work session? Work session, absolutely. You all heard a couple of comments today about House Bill 443. Well, we have a presentation for you about that, an update. I think we've talked to you about that before, but we've got some more information, timeline on when a Zoda may be coming forward, your role in all of that, and what we believe House Bill 443 means for the process. We're also going to give you several other updates. We have the Blue Sky Activity Center that you all added to the urban service area, but we separated for study purposes. So we have a small area plan that we're about to announce for that, so we'll give you an update on that. And then we're going to give you our annual report about a month early. So we've got the 2024 annual report, which will include all the information that you all did, as well as some demographic updates as well, so several things. All right, thank you. This meeting is adjourned.