With myself and all these kind of questions you're asking and I think they do a wonderful job getting people of the right parties When it's not code Say thank you all because since you've become the director it's the transparency from the division of code enforcement has been It's been lightening and your leadership is why all these positive changes are happening here Oh, and the environment that you have created. I mentioned tell you back in September of 23 Customer service would be the paramount thing for code and you know It's in our business if we think about it like a foundation an engineer will tell you if you don't build the foundation perfect You can't have anything above it worth anything because those little cracks become fractures Fractures become big problems think about that the same way with your your staff If you don't train them up from the beginning from the foundation and get that mindset set from the beginning You're looking problematic for the future and now that this game is over. We're gonna go to a commercial Well, thank you for returning after that commercial break well now it's back to do to work we have some big questions for Director Lee still regarding code enforcement that can help the people of the 6th district and all over Lexington, what are the best? What's the best possible way to report a code enforcement or a nuisance issue with the code enforcement division? We definitely want you to use the city's Lex call division 3 1 1 4 2 5 2 2 5 5 we want to do it for Multiple reasons. It's a great start to the tracking Ability of the case that you've established the citizen will get their case number And they can follow it through then the process. Yes So 3 1 1 is our one stop for City Hall from all things And also something that I'm working with director Kendra Carter up. Let's call 3 1 1 is making sure that once the complaint is put into Salesforce That not only you receive the first initial Email if you put your email address in But you'll also receive an update as the case Progresses there have been many changes that you have brought in and brought like a It's the new light here and your division What are some of those changes that you and your staff are doing now? We didn't have a per formalized professional training program here formalized training program Just starts from the week before you get here. It takes you all the way through about your fifth week Get into your testing phase all the way through to you go to your state certification levels You're with somebody for the first nine months you come in here That's one of the major things we made a change in a couple of things that I did on the procedural level that have made differences Previously we were issuing multiple fines when we had the opportunity to Abate and an abatement is something that can make an immediate impact and solve an issue If you can abate it for what you can give a citation for let's get the problem out of the way Stops the phone calls to 200 main Stops the phone calls to us and the same amount of damage is done the abatement versus the fine are about the same And what we do now is we go and notice an order we do a citation and we assess Can we abate it? For the next step fine if we can we go after it and get it done and get it done over with we finally achieved abating five sidewalks now I know it doesn't sound like a lot But we've gone from 20 years of zero to five in less than now six months And what that does is in sidewalk world the fines are ten dollars a square foot Yeah And they can they can add up so quick that you can put a house in foreclosure Over a few sidewalk panels, and I thought that was ludicrous Yes, you know one of the big issues that we heard during our town hall is about issues regarding Abatements and lessening The the fines for for our residents And I really like what you came come in and have done to make it basically more customer service oriented and making sure that we actually help people instead of Punish them. I'm curious after our town halls that we had we had Basically many of our residents are fearful once they get the citation What if there if a resident receives a citation from code enforcement What should they do? I like to tell everybody they should do three things at the bottom of the notice they're going to have the Officer's phone number his name and his email address They should go in and do a blast in my opinion write out one statement that they want to make contact to talk about this case and They had a copy and paste that into an email and they had a text the officer to that gives them complete Confidence that they've reached the individual they want to talk to once they open up that line of communication The door opens wide open for them. What can be done? There's compliance schedules. There's alternate Programs it's just we're able then to sit down with you one-on-one and tell you what you what you can do Versus just what you would not know if you didn't ever call It's a new day here in the Division of Code Enforcement where they are willing to work with you to to fix Whatever you were cited for so solution base. We want to be known nowadays as a customer You It's Beautiful នាសំនានប់រ្តាងតែតុានក្ព្ស្ម្នល្រាត់ល្ម្រ្ម្លាន្លានៅគ្រ្ម្លាខ្ម្រ្ម្ល្យះម្ល្ល់ន់ប្រ្នាវិច់។ ក្ម្រានៅដឹ្ម្រាប់ចស្ម្Ạ្មង។ អំរាសធរានរ្ម្រាន់ន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រ។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រ។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រ។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រ។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រ។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ ក្រាន។ and modernize housing, you know, I think that this is an appropriate location. We're splitting where the overlay districts are and we focused on those areas specifically because that's the feedback that we got. So I was looking at the map that shows the notification of who is notified about this project and it has a great map that shows where this site is and then the surrounding neighborhoods and it seems like maybe it's best encapsulated in this photograph or this rendering is you're gonna end up with a block along Maxwell that is sandwiched between two very tall things. And I feel sorry for the folks who are in this block, you know, who are gonna be facing a four to six story structure and it seems like the only, I understand that the comprehensive plan calls for more densification but it seems like it's being done at the expense of the people in that neighborhood. Just my observation at this point. Yes, Mr. Nickel. Applicant, thank you for your presentation and thank you for outlining all of the different architectural adjustments that you all made in order to meet the staff's recommendation. We understand we're not designing the project for you but you took the recommendations to heart and made a significant change on the overall project itself. You removed 75 dwelling units, is that correct? 75 beds, yes. 75 beds. So that's 8% of the overall project reduction in beds and I understand in these projects in order for them to be underwritten, you need to generate as much net operating income as possible and when you remove 75 beds, that's a significant adjustment made by the developers in order to take to heart and implement the recommendations of our planning staff. So I just want that to be known that those efforts were made by the developer, significant efforts in reduction of the overall massing which led to a reduction in the dwelling units of the project. So this is a good example of a developer listening to what are recommendations from our planning staff and providing a product that address their concerns and is still able to be financed and produced. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon again. I will not take much time because a lot of what I was kind of planning to cover has been already kind of talked about with regards to the compliance with the comprehensive plan that Mr. Crum kind of detailed in great detail and Mr. Baum has also already kind of gone over with regards to how we were living up to the design and density policies that are spelled out in our comprehensive plan. I had a feeling that this was going to be kind of the biggest talking point here is that what we are talking about is adding density next to the university, adding density next to recently approved density, but also adding density next to our downtown core. Our comprehensive plan stresses over and over again, we have been trying to connect downtown and the university since the 90s and have failed to do it consistently. What this shows is the areas that Lexington specifically realized when dealing with mostly a student housing issue, where we wanted to protect and what regulatory changes we made in the 90s and 2000s. So with that location, it is not remotely surprising that we have in close proximity on almost every side, we have downtown zoning because this comprehensive plan, the last comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan that dates back to 96 has said we are trying to connect these quarters and we're trying to do it outside of our historic districts. Here's your look kind of down through it. This is how close we are talking. This is a block from the university itself and from West High Street. These are the corridors where you can actually implement the tenants of the comprehensive plan and trying to make a functional university downtown area. It is not surprising in the community snapshot, what we found out is that we are still projecting to be growing in population a significant amount, up to 400,000 people in a short proximity. Look at your age groups. This is what we are basically thinking that is going to be the largest increase in age groups. Why is that? This is the type of housing that we can provide in great density that Lexington has failed to provide in recent years. Again, I won't go over the kind of the goals and objectives, but also the design and kind of density details because those were kind of covered at length. But here is what my main kind of point is. Our comprehensive plan talks in detail about what we have done in response to owner occupied neighborhoods that were getting overrun by student housing. We changed regulations, we added historic overlays, we dropped the number of total people that are unrelated that can live in one house to four. We took these active steps with the understanding that the city was also going to be upzoning the areas that we did not specifically identify. We have not done that in any way, shape or form. And since that time, we have heard about the university's enrollment increasing, we have heard about how, as the plan says, that, where is it? Oh, excuse me, that the area between the urban core and the university has shrunk so as to be almost indistinguishable. And now, the last kind of follow up that there is there, there is a critical need to complete the task started in the 90s by upzoning the areas that we have chosen not to protect. We have been adding greater flexibility in our regulations. This is the area that we have been lacking. This is the area that has been identified as where it should be appropriate, and that's why you are seeing the development come to it. You are surrounded by very, very tall buildings already. You are closing up that gap between the downtown core, just as our comprehensive plan has directed us to do. And that's one of the reasons why I thought that this location in particular was so apt for a potential redevelopment. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have. I just kind of wanted to hit on that main point. One thing I did also forgot to say, when you are talking about what the impact adding this type of density can do to address the issues that were identified in the 90s and 2000s, you're talking about saving a neighborhood of almost 200 single-family units. Throughout this comprehensive plan, we have heard that rental property owners are buying up property and they are renting them to as many kids as they can, or just not allowing first-time homeowners to buy the property because they're able to pay more for the property because they can charge more in rent. This type of project saves neighborhoods. It does. We keep on hearing about croach. This is how you make sure, because you add the demand where the students, where the young professionals are, because that is where it is most needed and it will have the most impact to stop encroachment onto existing single-family neighborhoods. Happy to answer any questions. Yeah, Mr. Nicholson, you talked about the 90s. When would you estimate that the University of Kentucky decided they didn't want to be in the housing business? They have increased their housing more since the 90s than they had prior to that. That is for sure. They do not have- It's not on campus, it's off campus. It is, a substantial amount is on campus. They announced more housing that is going on campus. They are limited by their bonding power by the legislature and where they can do the different student housing projects while also having to respect the increase in classrooms that is necessary by their- I understand that. What I'm trying to get at is that we've become a partnership with the university to provide housing and that's something that's pretty new. Certainly, we didn't think about that two comp plans ago. You know, it's been in the last comp plan that we've seen the outgoing of that. So the university, and if I'm wrong with this, I want you to correct me, but it seems to me like that the University of Kentucky has decided they have better use for their land than to build housing. And so my concern is is that we do this the right way. I'm not against this project at all, but density is the key to this. Yes, it is. But if the university continues to grow, and I don't see any reason why it won't because it is the flagship of our state, at what cost or what do we need to do going forward to make sure that we do this in a fashion that benefits the city as well as benefits the university? I like a win-win. I don't like a win-loss. And so I'm not trying to be negative on this project. It's just that we've seen several of these and it seems to me like in the last five to eight years, the university's decided that their land is better used for other back classrooms than dormitories. So just two years ago, they opened up entirely new residential, basically a campus that is right by W.T. Young Library. They have announced expansion of that area. And I'm not trying to debate that. All I'm trying to say is that in this comp plan, this is what we have absolutely decided to do. And it's hard for me to be against something that we have constantly decided this is the best use of our land. It is a need to densify our corridors and connect downtown with the university. Those are two of the largest tenants in that comp plan. And that's what I think what we are truly trying to implement with this exact project. I was just trying to get my head around it. Thank you, sir. Yeah, thank you. I mean, I think you've outlined a compelling argument for the density and the location of the density and the rationale behind the choice of the zone that you're asking for. It does, even with all those things checked off, it is, I think, worth recognizing that some of the buildings in this block were beautifully built. And especially as we look at that corner, you know, it's kind of, as a person who grew up on Maxwell Street, you know, it's hard. I mean, we have so many buildings in Lexington, and there's probably very few people that don't recognize that building because it stands out. And it's on a corridor, and it's been there 150 years. And those details and touches just made it just a little bit different and a little bit special. And it's not that we're all conscious of that building, but we just know it because it's there, and it's on the corner, and it's made its sort of face shown. And I guess, you know, as I'm looking at your project and in the context of these other projects that we're seeing, I mean, we can provide as long a checklist as humanly imaginable, and someone can check off every line, articulation, access to the side, nice wide sidewalks, and we still often end up with projects that don't, that are, every material is manufactured for ease of assembly. It's made and designed so that the least skilled construction workers can put it together. And in the end, we've gained scale, but we've lost details that matter to the community. And I guess what I'm trying to say is you make a compelling argument for all the items on the list, and at the same time, what you're showing us does replace, we are still losing something here in the community with this project, and we're gaining something that looks remarkably similar to a million other developments, and even though I agree with a lot of your arguments, that aspect still stings. So it's the problem of being land constricted. So we are trying to do this development on 1.9 acres. That's, acknowledgement, a lot of density on a very small site, and it's because the cost of land is what it is because we have made the decisions that we have made with regards to density in this community. Yes, I understand your point. This is a building that has switched over and uses a whole lot. It has been an office building. It has been a fraternity house. I believe it was a sorority house. I believe I was told just today that it was also a halfway house for a little while, and so this building has seen a lot of turnover, and where the other examples of this exact type of architecture are permanently preserved because they are in the H1 overlay. This building is not, it's not subject to any demolition regulations outside of normal LFUCG process, and I understand exactly what you are getting at. I think you missed my question a little. Sorry to interrupt. I think you're focused on the aspects of this building, and I think my point, and I probably just didn't word it well, was really focused on what's missing from your proposal, and it doesn't need to replicate this building, and we can't create good design with regulations here today, but those craftsmanship details where they took time at the top of the building to give a definition, where they took time to construct it around the windows with details where they sort of took time and how it interacted with the corner, those details I'm not saying should be the same in your proposal, but they're not there, and so it's more of like when we're losing something like this, thinking about how what you put back will be seen 150 years from now, and if people 150 years would be sad to see it go if it's torn down. As a resident of an H1 overlay from a house from 1888, I very much understand exactly what you're saying, and we're happy to take a look at that. But not about the details. I see what you're saying. Mr. Nickel. I got a follow-up to those comments. As we're looking at architectural detail and architectural design, the aesthetics of it, what is pleasing to the eye, what is not pleasing to the eye, those are all subjective aspects of the project. We do not deal with subjectivities here. We provide you with information that needs to be met to meet our ordinance, and you all have done so. As property owners, if there is no restriction on whether or not you can demolish a, or if there is no restriction on demolishing a building, you've got the right to demolish the building. I want to state that the aesthetic appeal of an architectural design is a subjective thing. We are not dealing with subjectives, and I think that after seeing the amount of effort that the architects and engineers have put in place through this presentation that I'm looking at here, the renderings, which are not inexpensive to create, the effort that you all have made to step down the buildings to be more contact sensitive, has proven that this is a well-thought-through project, and in my subjective point of view, it is architecturally pleasing, and you've met the requirements that are necessary to do so. But once again, we need to stick with what's objective and not what is subjective, and I think that it's important to recognize the effort and the expense, and the architectural detail and design that is put in place in this project. Many of these exist throughout university towns in the country, and these are what drive students to come to the university, and hopefully this is what drives students to stay in Lexington once they graduate by having a vibrant community with architecturally interesting buildings, and hopefully this is a place that once the graduates graduate, that they would like to stay in our community. As many of you all know, Subtext is very much interested in being in the Lexington community. They believe in this town, they believe that they can add to this town, and it's the reason why they own and operate and manage. It is not the entity that basically is just here to try to make a buck. They want to be in the Lexington business. So this is, I guess, more comment than question, but there is a question here first. That last sentence down there in your community outreach, am I correct in saying that the current owners of 179 and 185 chose not to list their houses as historic register properties? They have not, and have no intention of listing them. So I don't know whether I should say, please sit down before I say this, because it's not a question for you, but it's back to the dialogue we've got going here. Before tonight, and unfortunately, all the research I did is in a folio somewhere between the building I was in and the one I'm in here. I laid it down someplace, and I can't find it. But I went to the PVA website, and I looked up every single one of the addresses in the property that we're talking about, and the ones on the boundaries. And if I look at what we've got up here in terms of individual properties, I agree with Robin, sorry, Robin, I'm using your first name, that those individual properties are beautiful, they're part of our history, and I wish we were saving them. I wish we could save them. However, when I looked at all of the properties in this area, I would say I'm so sorry that the people in this neighborhood did not do what the Aylesford people and the Woodward Heights people and all those other people did, and take an effort to preserve their whole neighborhood, because a lot of damage has already been done if we're looking at this as a neighborhood scale. There are houses that went down in their parking lots. There are houses that went down in the same area that had properties constructed in the 1990s, and they're not historically interesting. They're not gonna be worth preserving. They don't house as many people as what you're proposing to put up. So I get two different answers if I look at the scale of individual properties as opposed to if I look at this at the level of neighborhood, and at the level of neighborhood, I'd say the train has left the station. And it's why I kind of kept pointing out the location of this site in comparison to the actual H1 overlays. It speaks volumes, in my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. At this point, we have citizen comments. So if you citizens would step up individually, state your name, address, and we will have, what is it, three minutes per individual. You can do so in stepping up to the podium. Good afternoon, Reverend Matt Falco from Maxwell Street Presbyterian Church, the church that's immediately across the street from the proposed development. It is good to be with you this afternoon. We did meet with the developers, and they have shared with you all our concerns. I would just like to echo some of them. We are very much concerned about the impact of traffic and parking in that area. We're a 400-member congregation with daily activities, which I'm sure some of you are aware of. We've got lots of folks coming and going. And Lexington Avenue is not just connected to High Street, but it's also connected to Avenue of Champions and Memorial Coliseum and all the events that go on in that place already. There are moments when that intersection of Lexington Avenue and Maxwell Street is backed up in both directions for many, many cars because of these impacts, these events that we have. We're grateful as a congregation to be located downtown in the middle of everything. We're excited about the possibility of more students being in that area. We are not in any way completely opposed to this plan. However, the density, the scale seems to exceed the new neighboring property that was just redeveloped. We didn't even show up for that one to say anything, but here we are, it's happening again. And so we feel like we need to articulate that this is a change in character for this neighborhood and for the residents who are in that area. And we just have concerns that the change is not, that the streets, the infrastructure is not gonna be able to handle what it is that's being proposed. I'm happy to answer any questions on behalf of the church, but I just wanted to voice my concern. Okay, thank you, Rick. Yes, sir. All right, my name is Zach Leonard, and I am the Historic Preservation Manager at the Blue Grass Trust. I want to thank the developers for meeting with us on site, but I worry that they didn't take our feedback very seriously. In their justification letters, subtext responds to several place builder criteria. First they mention EGR 41, which holds that developments should incorporate reuse of viable existing structures. Subtext responded that there are no viable existing structures capable of meeting the proposed density. But this is hardly a sound argument, as it implies that density concerns should always trump adaptive reuse. Subtext next references EGR 51, which holds that structures with demonstrated historic significance should be preserved or adapted. Subtext believes that there is no historic structure on the properties per their letter, but this is palpably false, as there are six that predate 1920. I also find it interesting that staff recommended postponement for the Parker's Mill Road Project because it was at odds with several goals of the 2045 comprehensive plan that aimed to incentivize the renovation, restoration, development, and maintenance of historic residential and commercial structures, and to develop incentives to retain, restore, and preserve and continue use of historic resources. And subtext doesn't address any of these goals. It does claim that the project will strengthen the opportunities for higher density and housing affordability, but these units will rent at around $1,100 per month by the bed, which is obviously an upscale rate. So really they are not offering a diverse array of housing, but are catering to the exact same market as the Maxwell next door. And again, we don't want to obstruct necessary infill, but the two Italianettes on East Maxwell date to the mid-1880s and are amongst the oldest buildings in this section of the city. According to its National Register nomination form, 185 East Maxwell on the corner was designed by John McMurtry, one of the region's most famous architects who was also responsible for Floral Hall, Loudoun House, and Christ Church Cathedral. I also want to say, unless you are pursuing national landmark status, which is quite rare, it absolutely does not matter in the eyes of the National Park Service whether a property is listed on the register individually or as part of a district. This is a red herring, and it has no reflection on the building's significance. For instance, Hopemont, our headquarters, is an iconic building, but it is only designated as part of the Grants Park Historic District. 185 East Maxwell is historic tax credit eligible, and I know the developers could handle that process and perhaps use it as their gym, their club, their wellness center, because they told us that they are rehabbing a historic hotel in Missouri for tax credits. And I would just urge them to treat our historic buildings with as much consideration as they do the ones in their own state. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Amy. Yeah, oh, mm-hmm. I know, I know. Thank you. And could you put up my... And then, if you haven't, is this the last copy? Okay. I'm Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. I live in a failed H1, and I can tell you that even the National Register listing, which we did attain as a district, is very costly. You need a consultant. So it makes sense to make a community district nomination rather than an individual one. Also, every National Register listing has an index of properties. It says contributing to the district or non-contributing. In that regard, any individual property is either contributing or not within a larger district. Perhaps they could refer to the listing itself and see which properties were contributing. As far as H1 goes, it all depends on how many absentee owners, how many landlords control the property. It's sad to say, but it's not the citizens who determine whether there will be an H1 overlay. It's very heavily weighted toward property owners, and those who want maximal return won't necessarily consider other matters. Mr. Penn, I want to thank you for pointing out what's exactly right at a recent hearing on a university housing proposal. It's time the university took pains to house its own on campus. UK will never do this so long as Lexington is willing to clear whole neighborhoods of varied and more affordable housing to supply the lack. And it's important that the city send a clear message. Enough is enough. So I'm asking the commission to send that message today. And what I would like you to do is look at your sheet. And if you notice, the north end of the block is a surface parking lot. Mr. Nicholson noted that they are surrounded, practically surrounded, by properties that already have downtown business zoning. That surface parking lot has downtown business zoning. It is an underutilized property. It is owned by the University of Kentucky. The biggest problem with this development is that it's at the wrong end of the block. It's usurping and supplanting what are actively used, varied housing stock available to tenants, not just homeowners. Some students and many who are not students, many who are longtime residents, they stayed on. So the problem here is exactly UK's policy. And we can't change UK's policy by telling them the land use rules. We can change it by refusing them to allow them to use our land, and there are further details right here, for the housing of students. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Maureen Peters, and I occupy 276 Lexington Avenue, directly across the street from the eight-story portion of the development. I am opposed to the zone change. It is sad for Lexington to lose such a large number of historic houses which surround the downtown core. While they may not fall in a local H1 district, many of the structures are listed as contributing to the national registered district that they are located in. And yes, they were included in the original Ellsford boundary, but negotiations removed just this section. I'm also very disappointed in the process. As late as yesterday afternoon, the staff report recommended postponement for this project to change the recommendation less than 24 hours before what may be the neighbor's only opportunity to voice concern is very unfair. The first draft of this project was presented to the zoning subcommittee on April 3rd. The result of that meeting was recommendation for postponement, citing concerns about the big box and lack of articulation for the development in a residential neighborhood. The new images submitted only days ago are basically unchanged from what was previously shown. The blue panels are now brown. They rendered the interior lighting slightly differently and put in a bunch of people. There's no additional articulation of the facade, no balconies, no step downs along the street to soften the canyon-like effect. I have followed the process and the results for several off-campus student housing projects and the negative impact they have on surrounding neighborhoods. I've listened to developers and supporters say students won't bring cars and don't need parking because they live close to everything they need. The Herald-Leader article following the hub development confirmed developers have paved additional lots blocks away for more parking and the illegal double parking on neighborhood streets brings traffic to a standstill on a regular basis. Lastly, I have a personal concern for the development because I do occupy 276 Lexington Avenue. We've owned it for over 30 years. This historic house is one and a half story building listed on the National Register nomination as a former outbuilding of the Higgins Mansion. This means it's one of the oldest buildings in the neighborhood. I stated at the last zone change for the Maxwell project the development plan will cut out all sunlight to our house for nine months each year. If this development is approved, it'll never see the sun again. I also believe that this zone change will have a negative impact, not only on the physical aspects, but it will reduce the value of our properties. Thank you for your consideration and service. Thank you. Okay, it doesn't look like we have anyone else. Mr. Nicholson. I will not take up too much time because I think we covered most of the issues that were just brought up. I will say that the owner of 185 Maxwell just reached out to us as he's watching it at home and he reiterated that he is in full support of this project and would like that you all to approve this project. I do want to clarify this is multifamily housing, it's not just student housing. And we have made significant changes that Daniel and Mr. Bump went over regarding specifically what Ms. Peters identified that we hadn't, which was increased the size of the pedestrian infrastructure. We added articulation along Lexington. We decreased the size of the structure by four stories and two stories solely for the benefit of Lexington Avenue and the massing of the field. And so I think that there are significant changes to the renderings that we've kind of discussed at length. Last thing I will say, and I've kind of gotten at this, but disapproving projects like this doesn't send a message to UK. It sends a message to every landlord in town, keep buying up single family houses because we're not gonna take the serious decisions and actions that we have to take as a community to actually grow up. We hear it all the time, grow up, not out. We gotta actually do this. These are the hard decisions, but it's exactly where our comprehensive plan said we want density. It's where we wanna connect the downtown and the university. And so while I do understand the concerns and desires for UK to build more housing, we can't force them to do that. But what Lexington turning down projects says is keep on turning over owner occupied house into rental housing because that's what's happening. That's what's been happening for 30 years. It will continue to happen unless we do something different. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Is there any other citizens that would like to speak? Yes, Ms. Clark. By way of rebuttal, first I'll read to you from a finance committee report that was followed when UK finally is now building, constructing one more dorm. Graystar is the largest operator of apartments in the US, et cetera. In addition to record enrollment of more than 3,300 students, demand for living on campus is on the rise. The public private partnership, the P3 strategy, continues to be appropriate. That would be the strategy of contracting out your housing. UK at the beginning of its contracts said that we're sticking with our core mission and student housing is not within it. The public private partnership, P3 strategy, continues to be appropriate given the university's desire to continue to expand its housing stock quickly while reserving debt capacity for other capital projects. And the slides that I would ask be put in the record show enormous projects, nearly a billion dollars in one instance. And what I want to say is I live there. Student rental is eating up land for, okay, here's what they tore down, what UK tore down, the white outlined buildings, not just the two towers, 23 stories each of Kerwin Blanding, but all the eight low rise buildings and a dining hall around it. I'm not saying they weren't outdated and didn't need to be gone or replaced or improved, but they tore them all down and they are only now building back one dormitory for 600 plus people on, it's in the thing here, for 600 plus people on three plus acres. UK is not efficient in the use of its land and we need the land in the city for affordable housing and moderate housing and varied housing. Back to my theme, student rental is eating up land for long-term residence and home ownership. Yes, indeed it is. It hasn't stopped. It's, if anything, increased because the on-campus commercial dorms and following just slightly behind most of the UK-owned dorms, there are only very few left, are also 1,100 a month per person. It's driving students into the neighborhoods to get something cheaper. When UK was 750 on campus, it was 500 per person in my neighborhoods around campus. UK rents are driving up the rates and driving student of moderate means off campus. There's also a very hot international market in finance investment for these student properties. In mid-February, one on Red Mile called Drive, I think, sold to an international investor and just days ago, the two Angliana complexes were bought and the commentary that you can read in the international finance and so on noted the proximity to campus, the amenities and the likelihood of enduring demand. UK has land on campus that we need for housing UK students on campus and the policy of running it through international finance and investment is costing us all. I would ask that you think of the larger citizenry, the larger comp plan and recall the policy to incentivize development of underutilized land. We don't do that by looking at land that is in active use at a range of moderate to significant densities and allowing that to be up zoned when there's land designated at the other end of the same block it's already designated for business and highly intensive zoning. So I encourage you to read the whole of this which will be in the record, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the time. You're welcome. Okay, staff? Staff stands by our staff report. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission and close this portion out. Any questions? I know we may have them. So Mr. Mickler? I've got one quick question I forgot to ask for staff earlier. Given the density and lot sort of coverage proposal of this plan, was there discussion and a note regarding where all the mechanicals, I know this is a preliminary but I'm talking about sort of big picture with the mechanicals be located inside the garage or on the roof or would they be allowed to be on the street, Maxwell Street in Lexington? Yeah, so if you look on, we'll bring up the development plan. A lot of pictures on my slides. Okay, so it's a little bit tough to see but the bottom area here and that, and you should be able to pull it up. Once again, all of these are present on your all's computers as well. Those are marked as, I guess, various. That's where they're showing transformers. That's where they're showing inside utilities. They aren't currently shown. Once again, this is sort of the preliminary stage but it looks like they're housing that stuff internally. We can, if there's concern with that, we can add additional notes about location of utilities, et cetera, but looks like they are providing those internally because they're more or less building as far up as they can kind of accommodate to get that density. I guess then this is maybe partially a question then for the applicant if they're willing to put a note on the development plan specifically that the mechanicals would not be outside the structure, I guess unless, or staff maybe can help with the wording because I know we've done this on a lot of development plans but basically to prevent the, given how little property is left on the sides of this building that we don't find the mechanicals in those sort of outside edges. Would there, would you be able to reword that for me, Daniel, and then we can ask the applicant that question. Yeah, I think we can incorporate a note that requires that mechanical areas be either located internally or on the roof or to accommodate that sort of thing. Thank you. That was the plan all along. I actually, given my knowledge of your house and how impacted it is by the two developments, I would be, I am curious what your. Oh, ma'am, ma'am, the citizens portion is over with, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I think we're getting into the details of it right now so hopefully we can answer that for you. So Mr. Mickler, go ahead. Well, I think that both agreed to add that as a note to the development plan. I mean, I still, to my earlier question, Daniel, and this does bring in the sort of, the person who sort of stood up, we had talked about the scale of the building sort of in relation to the street. And I think that's what the, is that what the, is that, I'm not sure. But, and we've got, we've had the comment from someone on Lexington Avenue who owns sort of a single family house and we're getting away from the, we're getting away from scale of the building on the street and that is clearly impacting a person's home in terms of light. We've seen, and on the last development, we had it scaled back on the street and on this one, we're not. So I wonder if you could speak to that. Yeah, yeah, so a couple different things. So the conversation before that we had regarding where a shade study was provided, that was kind of further down South Limestone there. And really, it boils down to, I guess, the difference in expectations for the areas that you're in. So something like a suburban development can expect to have kind of a different development product around them than, say, a downtown. And so the relationship between those structures, the expectation of where light is visible or not. To my recollection, the house, that kind of in question on Lexington, is basically the front portion of the property there is already covered, I guess, with tree canopy coverage. So the way this property is located, I mean, as you're going, I'll bring up the aerial photos again. Yes, so there's an existing shading function going on, essentially, already today without there being any change now. So really, the differences you would see, so the subject property itself, the property in reference is here. So this would, an increase in height here would impact the front portion, but that's where the existing trees are on that property anyway. And cover, basically, the front of it. So, but speaking larger to sort of the context here, if we look on the rest, basically this home here is an outlier in terms of size, scale, massing, et cetera, too much around it. Essentially, the rest of this Lexington Avenue frontage here, we're looking at three-story buildings directly adjoining. You've got the Stavroff development kind of to the rear here. So it is a little bit different, but it is also separated by a street. So looking at all of that in totality is where we were sort of relating it. Yes, there are single-family scaled structures in the vicinity, but mainly this is an area that is already kind of seeing that intensification, including adjoining the property in question there. I'm gonna simplify the question a little bit so that we, in previous recommendations, staff has made to not exceed a certain height given the width of Lexington Avenue. You no longer think that that rationale makes sense? We opted to go with a different approach on this. So that means you no longer think that rationale makes sense? Well, it's a reflection, too, of what the, since that's been approved, that changed the context here. We're looking at a different development pattern. Essentially, the development in question before handled a completely different set of streets. So while we are still talking about Lexington Avenue, we're talking about the opposite side, one block closer to the massing of the development there. So we thought that the application, as presented, hit on some of those core constraints. There's no requirement in the zoning ordinance that we hold to that. It's trying to get to these general concepts of compatibility and massing, which we thought was accomplished here. Okay, thank you. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, if I may. Daniel, help me for a second. I've got a question for Mr. Nicholson, but I think you could navigate that much better. Can you turn your microphone on, Mike, please? Midway through, there's a rendering of the- Microphone, please, Mike, if you will. I'm, did I turn it off? No, okay, I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. Okay, navigate to this picture. I've got a question for Mr. Nicholson. That one right there. One, I've got a question for you, Mr. Nicholson, and then two, I've got maybe more of a clarification on something. I don't mean to compare other plans that we've seen and so forth in the past, but it wasn't too terribly long ago that at this point in time, we saw something similar, and when it came back to us as a final development plan, they said, oh, gee, that was a mistake. We didn't have any intention of building a deck or a balcony or anything like that. What's your intention with that? Are you planning to build it? We are indeed, and it was part of our first submittal. So it very much is. There are three interior courtyards that are entirely open up to the sun. I appreciate that comment. Secondly, I think it's more of just a clarification than anything. A lot's been said, you know, it's always traffic, parking, et cetera, et cetera. Looking, your partner there, your cohort, he indicated that parking-wise, you were taking care of 43%. What I'm looking at on the development plan says actually 358 parking spaces. That's all internal. There's no surface parking. Correct, it is entirely structured parking. We have a commitment of 50 other parking places that we can utilize. That is a sticky point with me, simply because we've got to do what you're suggesting and take care of our own parking, so to speak, and not just simply go to structure parking, surface parking, I'm sorry. Thank you for the comments. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Any other comments or questions to this application? Mr. Mickler. Well, I have one comment, and it's, again, it's just, it does not have to do with a certain number of feet or a note on the development plan, but my comment is, things like the vinyl windows and the flat manufactured surfaces, they won't last 150 years, and we're sort of answering the call of the comprehensive plan, and we're answering the call of density, but what the proposal to replace it with doesn't have the handwork of our local citizens, and it won't last what the previous generation has put forward, and as you work through that, I would just, I would urge you to just keep in mind 150 years, and how would this building look in 150 years, and let that sort of hopefully maybe make some edits on your final plans. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Okay, Mr. Davis. I'd like to make one final comment. Even though this project meets the letter of the law, I feel like the spirit is still not there, because I don't think it meets the need that we have for housing that's affordable in the city interior, and it troubles me, but I'll probably have to vote yes for this. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but it just, it bothers me. I can't put my finger on it, but it just bothers me. It's something's missing here, but I can't figure out what it is. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Penn. Well, I wasn't gonna say much about this until Ms. Clark quoted me, and it was a totally different situation, because I was talking about the loss of Prawl Town, and what that neighborhood meant to Lexington, the history, and I still think it's a... Can't hear you. Just talk to the mic. Well, I was talking about Prawl Town, because I was really concerned about losing a neighborhood that had history, and that's why I said enough is enough, but I will tell you that we are living in an environment right now, whether it's plastic bottles or where it is, we're building throwaway buildings. We're building buildings that last the mortgage, they get the equity on the buildings, they get the income off the building, and then when it gets to the point to where it's not worth fixing, it's a tear down, throw away, and do it again, and that's the society we live in now, and that's the society that we're trying to live within, and if we're gonna build affordable housing, it's not gonna last 150 years. It's just not. I mean, we would love for it to. I certainly would love for it to, but I had to ask Mr. Nichols the question, because I'm trying to get my head around what the needs of the comprehensive plan says the needs are for this community, and what we like about this community, and sometimes, Mr. Meckler, they just don't jive, so as long as the University of Kentucky has bonding power, and can bond their own facilities, housing's not in their best interest. Yes, they have a lot of land there. It used to be the dairy farm, used to be a lot of things they used it for, but we can't force, Mr. Nichols is exactly right. We can't force the University of Kentucky to do anything except ask them to be a good partner in our situation. My concern right now, my concern right now is that my colleague, who had to leave, keeps talking about subjective versus objective, and that becomes very necessary when we get in a situation after July 1, and I'm concerned about how we go forward after July 1, but that doesn't erase what we're dealing with right here today, and I wonder why they just didn't wait till July 1, and not have to take on the neighborhood associations and do all that, and I admire their courage for going forward with it, because of what we've been told, it'd be a lot easier July 1, but I want it to be the best thing we can do, and, Rory, I know you're shaking your head. I hope I'm not right, but my point is is that we cannot change what the University of Kentucky does, and off-campus housing's gonna be more expensive than on-campus housing, and the only reason is is because the University of Kentucky wants it to be that way. We can't change that, it's just what it is, so we're either gonna follow the comp plan, and we're gonna build these units, and we're gonna try to go forward, or we're not, and I don't, in my personal opinion with this particular one, I don't see how not going forward with this is in the best interest of what we're trying to do with the comp plan, so I wasn't gonna speak to this, but this is very different than Prawl Town. Thank you, Mr. Penn. I think most of everybody said something, so if anybody else has anything, if not, floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I'll give it a try, and just a comment following up with Mr. Penn and others just now. Yeah, our comp plan talks about housing, and I think it's pretty broad in the fact that it talks about not only affordable housing, but we need housing for everybody. We've seen something a year ago within the last year on Maxwell Street for some high-end townhomes. We're seeing student housing. Quite frankly, if we've got to provide for some student housing, I see this as the best place for student housing. It's within a rock-throwing distance of the campus, so I'm gonna move for approval of subtext acquisitions LLC zoning map amendment and subtext development to development plan, plan MAR25-5 subtext acquisitions for the reasons provided by staff. All right, we have a motion. Let me say this, noting the conditional restrictions. Does that cover that? Yeah, okay. All righty. Second. Okay, no, we have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Sorry, Mr. Davis, are you okay? Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the revised staff recommendations for plan MJDP25-14 subtext development two with the eight noted conditions, deleting number nine. Commissioner, I think there may be a couple modifications to the conditions. Oh, sorry, go ahead. I would like to, so I hope our best would like to handle that. Can you put it up there? I'm sorry. So we'll see about putting it on the overhead for you, but currently a note on the development plan number 14 reads that the final development plan will reflect the design elements indicated in the multifamily design standards, and the staff feels like that should be a little bit more detailed to reflect what we see in the renderings to incorporate the, make sure that the final development plan incorporates the pedestrian level entrances for residential units on Lexington Avenue, that there be landscaping and trees between the structure and the curb line, there be a use of various materials and articulations on the structure, and then also that there be a step back of the structure along Lexington to maintain a four-story, a maximum of a four-story structure adjacent to 243 Lexington Avenue, and then add another note that would indicate that the mechanical areas should be located internally, or located on the rooftops, cut off there. And this is for the development plan, right? Yes, sir. Okay, so that would be now conditions nine and 10? Yes. As shown on the screen, and I presume the applicant's, no, we're deleting number nine. We deleted number nine, so it's nine and 10. And we shared those notes with the applicant. Okay, very good. Okay. So moved. Thank you. Mr. Baxter, are you still seconding? Thank you. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via granted. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. Applicant, Mr. DeDuncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your next meeting is Mayday. Meeting meetings at the Phoenix Building, 830 and 130. Hope you all have a good weekend. Thank you, sir. Meeting adjourned. Mr. Chair, I've got a question real quick. I'm sorry. For legal and or Jim, there was a little bit of discussion today in regards to the forthcoming July 1 and House Bill and Zoda and so forth. A plan that's in the process like today, where would that fall come July 1? I'm sorry. Mr. Owens asked about development plans that are approved now, but that will be a preliminary development plans that are approved now that will be coming back as final development plans for July 1. That's a good way of putting it. I think that these development plans are approved under the current provisions. So, you know, we will look at those and they should comply with what you've approved under the existing process and standards we have right now. However, we'll have to look at that when they come in, if they change substantially or otherwise and figure out what to do with those, you will still see development plans preliminary that come with the zone changes though. Well, you know, like today, you're seeing a development plan that is with his own change, you still see those, you just won't have a whole afternoon of hearings about development plans and subdivision plans only anymore. And just to kind of add on to that, this will be certified within two weeks. So the certification of this plan, this plan will already be approved and on the books by the time that the council gets the actual zone change. So prior to July one, this particular application will be set in stone and then they'll come back for the final where they'll have to comply with the notes and whatnot set forth. I guess, and as simple as I can say it, is a, with this being a, normally a final development plan to come back to us, it will still come back to us as a final development plan or does it fall under the new regulations as of July one? And not necessarily. Yeah, well, it depends on when they file, but they would have to essentially get through the zone change, then file and depending on that filing date. But otherwise, in a post HB 443 world, it comes in, we look at the notation, we look at the things incorporated into that and then would process that from there. So that's why the notation on the plans is extremely important. So is that a no, we may or may not necessarily? My understanding is unless there was a waiver or a health safety welfare concern raised by staff that post 443, a final development plan would not come back to you all. So it would not, if they jump through all the hoops. Okay, just curious. Thank you, Mr. Owens. This meeting is adjourned.